2025年iGaming扩张的经济影响 Economic Impacts of iGaming Expansion US,Nationwide

EconomicImpactsofiGamingExpansion

US,Nationwide

Preparedfor:

NationalAssociationAgainstiGaming

February2025

Preparedby:

TheInnovationGroup

101ConventionCenterDr.STE600LasVegas,NV89109702.852.1150

TheInnovationGroupFebruary2025Page1

EconomicImpactsofiGamingExpansion

TableofContents

EXECUTIVESUMMARY 6

DISCUSSION 7

SUMMARYOFRESULTS 8

THEIMPACTSOFIGAMING 14

ECONOMICIMPACTANALYSIS 14

REVENUEMODELS 16

iGamingRevenue 16

Brick-and-MortarCannibalization-ApproachOne(PercentofLand-based) 17

Brick-and-MortarCannibalization-ApproachTwo(PercentofiGaming) 21

DistributedGamingRevenue 23

Non-GamingAmenityRevenues 24

LABORIMPACTS 29

iGamingJobs 29

Land-basedGamingJobs 30

LaborSummary 33

TAXIMPACTS 34

ECONOMICIMPACTPROJECTIONS 37

ECONOMICIMPACTMODELING 37

InterpretingResults 37

SUMMARY 56

QUALITATIVEIMPACTS 58

DEVELOPMENTANDEXPANSION 58

PROBLEMGAMBLING 59

AReviewoftheResearch 59

APPENDIX:THEUSIGAMINGLANDSCAPE 72

IGAMINGINTHEUNITEDSTATES 72

Delaware 72

NewJersey 73

Nevada 74

Pennsylvania 75

WestVirginia 75

Michigan 76

Connecticut 76

RhodeIsland 77

DISCLAIMER 78

TheInnovationGroupFebruary2025Page2

ListofTables

Table1:EconomicEffectsofiGaming 6

Table2:EconomicImpactsofiGamingbyState(BasedonAverageofTwoMethodsDescribed

Within,20%iGamingTaxRate) 7

Table3:2024iGamingRevenueperCapita21+ 9

Table4:ProjectediGamingMarketSizebyState-2029 9

Table5:EstimatediGamingImpactonLand-BasedCasinoNetGamingRevenue 10

Table6:ProjectedBrick-and-MortarNetGamingRevenueLoss-2029($m) 10

Table7:ImpactofiGamingonDistributedGamingRevenue 11

Table8:EmploymentImpactsfromiGamingbyState 11

Table9:TaxImpactsfromiGamingbyState 12

Table10:EconomicImpactsofiGamingbyState 13

Table11:2024NetiGamingRevenueperCapita21+ 16

Table12:iGamingRevenueForecast-Colorado 17

Table13:ProjectediGamingMarketSizebyState-2029 17

Table14:Non-iGamingStateLand-BasedCasinoRevenueGrowth,NetofGDP&Pop.Growth

19

Table15:iGamingStateLand-BasedCasinoRevenueGrowth,NetofGDP&Pop.Growth 19

Table16:EstimatediGamingImpactonLand-BasedCasinoRevenue 20

Table17:ImpactedBrick-and-MortarMarketSizebyState-2029($m),ApproachOne 20

Table18:Brick-and-MortarLossasaPercentageofiGaming($m) 21

Table19:ImpactedBrick-and-mortarMarketSizebyState-2029($m),Approach2:Percentof

iGaming 22

Table20:ProjectedB&MRevenueLoss-2029($m),Approach1&2Comparison 22

Table21:ImpactofiGamingonDistributedGamingRevenue 23

Table22:DistributedGamingGGRLoss-Louisiana($m) 24

Table23:DistributedGamingGGRLoss-Illinois($m) 24

Table24:EstimatedRevenueSplitsandLossesbyBusinessArea 26

Table25:ProjectedRevenueWithoutiGamingbyBusinessAreabyState-2029($m) 27

Table26:ProjectedLossesbyBusinessAreabyState-2029($m)-Approach1:PercentofLand-

based 27

Table27:ProjectedLossFractionbyBusinessAreabyState-2029-Approach2:Percentof

iGaming 28

Table28:ProjectedLossesbyBusinessAreabyState-2029($m)-Approach2:Percentof

iGaming 28

Table29:iGamingLicensesperMillionAdultsbyState 29

Table30:ProjectediGamingJobsbyState 30

Table31:EmployeesperGamingPositionFY2024-Indiana 31

Table32:IllinoisEmploymentImpactofGGR 31

Table33:LaborMix,ReductioninVariableLabor,B&MCasinos-ApproachOne 33

Table34:ReductionsinVariableLabor,B&MCasinos-ApproachTwo 33

Table35:LaborMix,ReductioninVariableLabor,DistributedGamingLocations 33

Table36:DirectGamingJobImpactsbyCategorybyState-UsingApproach1:PercentofLand-

based 34

TheInnovationGroupFebruary2025Page3

Table37:DirectGamingJobImpactsbyCategorybyState-UsingApproach2:Percentof

iGaming 34

Table38:TaxRatesbyCategorybyState 34

Table39:TaxCalculationExample-Colorado 35

Table40:NetDirectTaxChangebyCategorybyState-2029($m)-UsingApproach1:Percent

ofLand-based 35

Table41:NetDirectTaxChangebyCategorybyState-2029($m)-UsingApproach2:Percent

ofiGaming 36

Table42:DirectGamingIndustryImpactsofiGaming-Colorado 38

Table43:StatewideEconomicImpactsofiGaming-Colorado 38

Table44:TaxImpactsofiGaming-Colorado 38

Table45:DirectGamingIndustryImpactsofiGaming-Illinois 40

Table46:StatewideEconomicImpactsofiGaming-Illinois 40

Table47:TaxImpactsofiGaming-Illinois 40

Table48:DirectGamingIndustryImpactsofiGaming-Indiana 42

Table49:StatewideEconomicImpactsofiGaming-Indiana 42

Table50:TaxImpactsofiGaming-Indiana 42

Table51:DirectGamingIndustryImpactsofiGaming-Louisiana 44

Table52:StatewideEconomicImpactsofiGaming-Louisiana 44

Table53:TaxImpactsofiGaming-Louisiana 44

Table54:DirectGamingIndustryImpactsofiGaming-Maine 46

Table55:StatewideEconomicImpactsofiGaming-Maine 46

Table56:TaxImpactsofiGaming-Maine 46

Table57:DirectGamingIndustryImpactsofiGaming-Maryland 48

Table58:StatewideEconomicImpactsofiGaming-Maryland 48

Table59:TaxImpactsofiGaming-Maryland 48

Table60:DirectGamingIndustryImpactsofiGaming-Mississippi 50

Table61:StatewideEconomicImpactsofiGaming-Mississippi 50

Table62:TaxImpactsofiGaming-Mississippi 50

Table63:DirectGamingIndustryImpactsofiGaming-NewYork 52

Table64:StatewideEconomicImpactsofiGaming-NewYork 52

Table65:TaxImpactsofiGaming-NewYork 52

Table66:DirectGamingIndustryImpactsofiGaming-Ohio 54

Table67:StatewideEconomicImpactsofiGaming-Ohio 54

Table68:TaxImpactsofiGaming-Ohio 54

Table69:EmploymentImpactsfromiGamingbyState-AverageofApproach1&2 56

Table70:LaborIncomeImpactsfromiGamingbyState-AverageofApproach1&2 56

Table71:ValueAdded(GDP)ImpactsbyState 57

Table72:TaxImpactsfromiGamingbyState-AverageofApproach1&2 57

Table73:ProblemGamblingKeyStatisticsandFindings 60

Table74:EstimatedCostsofProblemGamblingbyState 63

Table75:DelawareiGamingTrends 73

Table76:NewJerseyiGamingTrends 74

Table77:PennsylvaniaiGamingTrends 75

Table78:WestVirginiaiGamingTrends 76

Table79:MichiganiGamingTrends 76

TheInnovationGroupFebruary2025Page4

Table80:ConnecticutiGamingTrends77

TheInnovationGroupFebruary2025Page5

TransmittalLetter

February10,2025

ShannonMcCrackenVicePresident

NationalAssociationAgainstiGaming

Viaemail:

info@

DearMs.McCracken:

OnbehalfofTheInnovationGroup,Iampleasedtopresentourindependentanalysisof

iGaming'spotentialimpactsacrossmultipleU.S.markets.Foroverthreedecades,The

InnovationGrouphasprovidedanalysisofthegamingandhospitalityindustries,supporting

multibillion-dollardevelopmentsacrossmorethan80countrieson6continents.Centraltoourworkisanunwaveringcommitmenttoobjectivityanddata-drivenresearch,regardlessofourclients'positionsongamingpolicy.

Asagreedattheoutsetofthisengagement,ouranalysiswasconductedindependently,andour

findingswerenotguaranteedtoalignwithanypredeterminedconclusions.Thisapproach

reflectsourcoreprinciplethatreliableresearchmustfollowtheevidence.Theresultingreport

providesacomprehensive,fact-basedassessmentofiGamingmarkets,examiningcurrent

markets,projectedmarketsizesinstatesconsideringlegislation,andanticipatedimpactsonthosestates’existingland-basedcasinooperations,includingdistributedgamingfacilities.We'vealsoconductedathoroughevaluationofbroadereconomicimplications,analyzingeffectson

statewideemployment,GDP,andproductivitymetrics,aswellassocialconsiderationssuchasproblemgaming.

Webelievethisnonpartisanapproachprovideslegislatorsandstakeholderswiththedetailed

informationneededtounderstandtheimplicationsofiGaminglegalizationmorefullyandto

balancethesefindingsinmakingpolicydecisionsbestfortheirstates.Whileweunderstandthisresearchwillinformadvocacyefforts,ouranalysismaintainsobjectivity,allowingdecision-

makerstoevaluatebothopportunitiesandchallengesthroughaclear,empiricallens.

WeappreciatetheopportunitytosupporttheNationalAssociationAgainstiGamingwiththisresearch,andwetrustthisreportwillserveasavaluableresourceinupcomingpolicy

discussions.

Sincerely,

BrianWyman,Ph.D.

ExecutiveVicePresidentTheInnovationGroup

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

TheInnovationGroupFebruary2025Page6

TheInnovationGroupwasretainedtoconductanindependentassessmentoftheimpactsof

iGamingonland-basedgaming,stateeconomies,andpublichealthinstatescontemplating

iGamingin2025.Thedataareclear:iGamingharmscasinogaming.Inthisreport,wequantifytheimpactsoncasinosanddownstreamimpactsonthebroadereconomy,sothatpolicymakerscanbalancepositiveandnegativeimpactstomakethebestdecisionfortheirconstituents.

Table1:EconomicEffectsofiGaming

PositiveImpactsonStates

NegativeImpactsonStates

OnlineGamingTaxRevenue

ReducedTaxesfromCasinoGaming

ReducedCasinoGamingHasDirectandDownstreamEffects

-LossofWell-PayingJobs

-LessIn-StatePurchasingbyCasino

-InabilitytoMeetFiscalObligationstoLocalCommunity

-ReducedCapacitytoInvestinPhysicalPlantExpansion

-LossofWould-BeJobs

-ReducedPropertyTax

MitigationofIncreasedDisorderedGambling

-PublicandPrivateEntitiesTreatDisorderedGambling

-SavingsReductions

Source:TheInnovationGroup

NetLaborandProductionDeclinesversusTax

Tosummarizethefiscalcost-benefitofiGamingimplementationinseveralstatesconsidering

iGaminglegislation,wepresentthefollowingtable,whichshowsthenettaxgain-afterthenewiGamingtaxesarereducedbydirectlossesincasinogamingtaxandthedirect,indirect,and

inducedeffectsonsalestax,hoteltax,payrolltax,stateincometax,andothers.Neitherimpactsofreducedcommunityinvestmentnorproblemgamblingincreasesarepresentedinthistable.

TheInnovationGroupFebruary2025Page7

Table2:EconomicImpactsofiGamingbyState

(BasedonAverageofTwoMethodsDescribedWithin,20%iGamingTaxRate)

PositiveEffects

NegativeEffects

ValueAdded(GDP)Loss

State

NetTaxGain($m)

JobLosses

LaborIncomeLoss($m)

($m)

Colorado

$154.8

-1,739

($109.7)

($313.1)

Illinois

$81.9

-4,733

($292.9)

($831.7)

Indiana

$37.7

-2,149

($158.1)

($428.6)

Louisiana

($34.0)

-2,642

($163.6)

($410.5)

Maine

$36.4

-378

($22.0)

($59.7)

Maryland

$19.4

-1,451

($109.7)

($372.5)

Mississippi

$37.8

-1,906

($96.0)

($302.6)

NewYork

$140.8

-4,921

($449.3)

($1,170.7)

Ohio

$233.9

-2,818

($203.9)

($602.0)

Sources:IMPLAN,TheInnovationGroup

Discussion

ThemostcitedpositiveeconomicbenefitthatstateswillexperiencefromiGamingisincreasedtaxrevenuefromonlinegamingmarketexpansion.However,therearealsosubstantialcontra-

indicationstoiGamingforastate.Reducedconsumerspendinginotherformsofentertainment,mostnotablyland-basedgaming,resultsinjoblossanddeclinesineconomicactivitythroughoutthestateeconomy.Additionally,disorderedgamblingincreasesarebothapublichealthconcernandafiscalissueforanalreadyoverburdenedhealthcaresystem.Inthisreport,weanalyzethesefactors.

Webeginbyanalyzingtheland-basedgamingreduction

1

thatstateshaveexperienced(andwillcontinuetoexperience)becauseofiGamingandtheassociatedtaxlossestothestate,which

partiallyoffsetthenewtaxesfromiGaming.Thereareadditional(andsubstantial)knock-oneffectsofthisreductioninland-basedgamingrevenue,including:

•Employmentreductionsatland-basedcasinos

•Reducedspendingatsuppliersbyland-basedcasinos

•Aversionbyland-basedcasinostocontinuetodevelopphysicalproperty,reducingwould-beconstructionjobsandtaxesonthesepropertyimprovements

•Smallercontributionsbycasinostolocalcommunities

•Reducedpursecontributionsinstateswhereland-basedgamingsupportshorseracing

1Acritiqueofthisapproachwillclaimthatsomestatesdidnotactuallyreducetheirland-basedgamingrevenueuponauthorizingiGaming.However,iGamingstatesveryclearlylagtheirnon-iGamingcounterparts(bydoubledigits)intermsofgrowthoverthelastfiveyears.Sothisisa“but-for”analysis,i.e.,land-basedgamingrevenueswouldhavebeensubstantiallyhigheriniGamingstatesbutfortheimplementationofiGaming.

TheInnovationGroupFebruary2025Page8

Allofthesehaveeconomicimplicationsendowedwithamultipliereffect–reducedlabor

incomebegetsreducedcommunityspending,whichinturnbegetsreducedlaborincomeat

businessesinthecommunity,andsoon.ThisreportcontainsaneconomicimpactanalysisthatsummarizestheseeffectsusingIMPLAN,awidely-trustedinput-outputmodelingsystemthatprovidesdetailedeconomicimpactanalysisthroughacomprehensivedatabaseofindustry

relationships,withitsmethodologiesanddatabeingusedbyfederalagencies,academicinstitutions,andprivatesectoranalystsforover40yearstoquantifytherippleeffectsofeconomicchangesthroughoutregionalandnationaleconomies.

Moreover,thereisincreasingevidence(ifnotconclusiveevidence)thatproblemgamblingis

exacerbatedbyiGaming.Inthisengagement,wereviewedmorethan20researchpapersin

problemgaming,andwesummarizetheresultsofseveralofthesepapersinthisreport.While

weunderstandthatmuchofthefundingforproblemgamblingresearchcomesfrompartisan

groupsonbothsidesoftheaisle,andwhileweunderstandthatweareintheindustry’snascency,basedonouranalysiswebelievethatlegislaturesmaywishtoconsiderboththepublichealth

issuesassociatedwithproblemgamblingaswellasthecostsofmitigationofthisissue,asmanystatesarealreadywoefullyunder-resourcedtotreatproblemgambling.Wewillalmostcertainlyunderestimatethisimpactbylookingatpublicreporting,asasubstantialportionofproblem

gamblingtreatmentcomesfromcharitableorganizationsorthroughtheprivatesector.

WhileiGamingprovidesanincreasedgamingtaxbase,withfewexceptionsthejobsitsupportsarelargelyout-of-state.Sincelicensesoftengotocasinos,whocontractwithnationwide(or

global)providerstoconductthegamingandprovidetheonlineplatform,iGamingjobsaretypicallyconfinedtoasmallhandfulofrolesatcasinostomanagethefunctionandasmallnumberof“playerdevelopment”employees(“hosts”)toensurethesatisfactionoftheonlinecasino’sbiggestplayers.

Meanwhile,thepositiveimpactofiGamingistwofold:(1)thereisanincreasedtaxbase,thoughwequantifytheareasinwhichiGamingtaxesreducetaxeselsewhere,and(2)thereisan

opportunitytorepatriateplayerswhootherwisegameonlineongraymarketsites,providingadditionalconsumerprotections(andtaxes,asin(1)).

Ifanyoftheonlinegamingspendisshiftedfromin-stateentertainmentbesidescasinogaming,itwillhaveadditional(negative)economicimpactsinthestateforwhichwehavenotaccountedinthisreport.Alternatively,someiGamingrevenuemaycomefromdepletionofsavings,andthereisevidencethatthisishappening,whichbegetsquestionsaboutstatecitizens’overalleconomichealththatareworthconsideration.Wediscussthisinthesectiononproblemgambling.

SummaryofResults

TheU.S.iGamingmarkethasexperiencedsignificantgrowthsinceitsinception,withseven

statescurrentlyofferingfulliGamingoperations.Themarketdemonstratessubstantialrevenue

potential,withexistingstatesshowingstrongpercapitaspendingpatterns.Theblendedaverageacrossalloperationalstatesstandsat$247.2percapita,providingarobustbaselineforprojectingperformanceinnewmarkets.

TheInnovationGroupFebruary2025Page9

Table3:2024iGamingRevenueperCapita21+

State

YearsofOperation

2024iGamingNGR

2024Population21+

2024RevenuePerCapita21+

Connecticut

3

$428,517,140

2,768,483

$154.8

Delaware

11

$62,638,661

785,164

$79.8

Michigan

4

$2,198,379,380

7,576,288

$290.2

NewJersey

11

$2,185,772,907

7,113,622

$307.3

Pennsylvania

5

$2,181,669,450

9,939,120

$219.5

WestVirginia

4

$244,601,218

1,357,021

$180.2

Total

$7,301,578,756

29,539,698

$247.2

Sources:VariousStateGamingRegulatoryBodies,USCensus

Weadjustthis$247.2percapitabasedonstate-specificpopulationandGDPpercapitaforecaststoprojectthemarketopportunitiesacrossninestatescurrentlycontemplatingiGaming

legislation.

Table4:ProjectediGamingMarketSizebyState–2029

State

Population(21+)

SpendperCapita

iGamingRevenue($m)

Colorado

4,798,638

$266.6

$1,279.5

Illinois

9,491,938

$256.7

$2,436.2

Indiana

5,199,551

$269.8

$1,403.1

Louisiana

3,421,994

$256.1

$876.3

Maine

1,136,390

$269.9

$306.7

Maryland

4,920,395

$250.9

$1,234.7

Mississippi

2,182,012

$265.4

$579.1

NewYork

15,856,194

$253.9

$4,026.4

Ohio

9,016,083

$259.0

$2,334.8

Source:TheInnovationGroup

Thisclearlypresentsanopportunityforstatestobolstertheirgamingtaxreceipts.TheNationalCouncilofLegislatorsfromGamingStates(NCLGS)hasrecommendedthatstatesimplement

legislationwithaniGamingtaxratebetween15%and25%;atlevelsmuchhigherthan25%,

operatorsarelessabletoreinvestinareassuchascompliance,playeracquisition,player

retention,andtechnologicalimprovementsthatallowthemtocompetewiththeunregulated

market.Tothisend,increasingthetaxratebeyond25%wouldcauseustoadjustourmarketsizeforecastsdownward,sofortheanalysiscontainedinthisreport,weassumeataxrateof20%,themidpointoftheNCLGSrange.

iGamingstealsrevenuefromexistinggamingoperations.AnalysisofcurrentiGamingstates

showsthatbrick-and-mortarcasinorevenueunderperformsby16.5%followingiGaming

introduction(15.8%nettingoutmacroeconomicfactors).ThisfigurederivesfromcomparingtheresultsofiGamingstates,whichsawanapproximately4.3%declineinland-basedrevenue,

againstthoseinnon-iGamingstates,whichexperiencedapproximately12.2%growthoverthelastfiveyears.Webelievethis16%figurewillgrowovertime,astoday’syoungpeople,whoaredigitalnatives,becomethecoregamblingindustryconsumer.

Table5:EstimatediGamingImpactonLand-BasedCasinoNetGamingRevenue

TheInnovationGroupFebruary2025Page10

NetGrowth

NetRevenueGrowth,iGamingStates(2024vs2019)-4.3%

NetRevenueGrowth,Non-iGamingStates(2024vs2019)12.2%

…GDP)-15.8%

EstimatedImpactofiGamingonB&MRevenue(unnormalized)·-16.5%(normalizedformacroeconomicdifferences:population&

Source:TheInnovationGroup

Viewedthroughaslightlydifferentlens,iGamingrevenueiscomprisedofaround78%new

revenue,and22%revenueshiftingfromland-basedcasinos—establishedbusinessesthatsupportwell-payingjobs,communityengagement,continuedinfrastructuredevelopment,andofcourseataxbaseofitsown.Bycontrast,mostiGamingjobsareheadquarteredout-of-stateoreven

abroad.

Theseimpactstranslateintospecificprojectednetgamingrevenuelossesforbrick-and-mortarcasinosineachstate,detailedbelow.

Table6:ProjectedBrick-and-MortarNetGamingRevenueLoss–2029($m)

State

ExpectedRevenueLoss

Colorado

$201.7-$286.4

Illinois

$278.7-$545.3

Indiana

$314.1-$403.5

Louisiana

$196.2-$382.0

Maine

$29.2-$68.7

Maryland

$276.4-$342.6

Mississippi

$129.6-$417.4

NewYork

$901.3-$983.7

Ohio

$468.1-$522.6

Source:TheInnovationGroup

Wealsoconsidereddistributedgamingoperations.Insomestates,gamingdevicesarepresentintavernsorfraternalorganizations,forexample.Tobeclear,thisanalysisisbasedonfarlessdata,anddistributedgamingstatestakeverydifferentapproachestogaming.Thatsaid,asimilar

approachasaboveyieldsanestimatedrevenuedeclineofaround8.3%inWestVirginia’s

distributedgamingoperations,normalizingformacroeconomicconditions,followingiGamingintroduction.

TheInnovationGroupFebruary2025Page11

Table7:ImpactofiGamingonDistributedGamingRevenue

State

2019Distributed

GGR($m)

FY2024Distributed

GGR($m)

Distributed GGRGrowth

GDP&PopulationGrowth

NetGrowth

Georgia

$821.3

$1,405.1

71.1%

20.2%

50.9%

Louisiana

$623.8

$749.8

20.2%

4.9%

15.3%

Montana

$420.0

$554.1

31.9%

23.9%

8.0%

Oregon

$966.5

$1,190.6

23.2%

14.0%

9.2%

SouthDakota

$230.2

$330.7

43.6%

13.0%

30.7%

Total-Non-iGamingStates

$3,061.8

$4,230.1

38.2%

15.5%

22.6%

WestVirginia

$398.1

$488.4

22.7%

8.4%

14.3%

ImpactofiGamingonDistributedGamingRevenue-8.3%

Sources:VariousStateGamingRegulatoryBodies,USBureauofLaborStatistics,USCensus

Theserevenue(andvisitation)impactswillresultincasinojoblosses.Andrevenueimpactsandjoblossesextendbeyondgamingfloors,flowingthroughallbusinessareasinresortoperations.Inthereport,weestimatedirectbusinesslossesinancillaryareasofcasinos/resorts,e.g.food

andbeverageandhotel.Wethendeliverourforecastsofthedirectjobandrevenueimpactsin

eachbusinessareatoIMPLAN,awidely-trustedinput-outputmodelingsystemthatprovides

detailedeconomicimpactanalysistoquantifytherippleeffectsofeconomicchangesthroughoutregionalandnationaleconomies.IMPLAN’soutputsincludeextendingthesedirecteffectsto

bothindirect(i.e.,atsuppliers)andinduced(i.e.,throughoutthebroadereconomy)effects.

Weshowthelostcasino/resortjobsincolumn1ofthetablebelow,followedbytheindirectandinducedjobsandstatewidetotalsincolumns2and3respectively.

Table8:EmploymentImpactsfromiGamingbyState

(BasedonAverageofTwoMethodsDescribedWithin)

State

Direct

JobsLost

IndirectandInducedJobsLost

TotalJobsLost

Colorado

-981

-757

-1,739

Illinois

-2,775

-1,957

-4,733

Indiana

-1,034

-1,115

-2,149

Louisiana

-1,320

-1,322

-2,642

Maine

-203

-174

-378

Maryland

-734

-716

-1,451

Mississippi

-1,088

-818

-1,906

NewYork

-2,657

-2,264

-4,921

Ohio

-1,220

-1,597

-2,818

Sources:IMPLAN,TheInnovationGroup

TheInnovationGroupFebruary2025Page12

AnotherareathatIMPLANassessesistaxes.Stateswillrealizedirectgaming-relatedtaxgains,butthesearemitigatedbynon-gamingtaxlossesassociatedwithjoblossesandreduced

spendinginthegreaterstateeconomy.Forexample,joblossesresultinpayrolltaxlossand

reducedstateincometaxes.Thetablebelowshowsthenettaximpacteachstatecanexpecttorealize.

Table9:TaxImpactsfromiGamingbyState

(BasedonAverageofTwoMethodsDescribedWithin,20%iGamingTaxRate)

Non-GamingTax

State

GamingTax

2

($m)

Losses

3

($m)

NetTaxes($m)

Colorado

$217.2

($62.4)

$154.8

Illinois

$278.2

($196.3)

$81.9

Indiana

$171.2

($133.5)

$37.7

Louisiana

$93.2

($127.2)

($34.0)

Maine

$42.0

($5.6)

$36.4

Maryland

$107.6

($88.2)

$19.4

Mississippi

$82.9

($45.1)

$37.8

NewYork

$315.2

($174.4)

$140.8

Ohio

$303.5

($69.6)

$233.9

Sources:IMPLAN,TheInnovationGroup

Twocriticalcategoriesofcostsremainunquantifiedinthesecalculations:

First,reducedcasinogaminghassignificantimplicationsforcommunityinvestment.Ascasinorevenuesdecline,theircapacitytofulfillcommitmentstolocalcommunitiesdiminishes.Thisincludesreducedsupportforinfrastructuredevelopment,communityprograms,andlocal

initiativesthathavehistoricallybenefitedfromcasinopartnerships.

Second,thepublichealthandsocialcostsassociatedwithincreasedproblemgamblingarenotreflectedinthesefigures.Researchindicatesthattheconvenienceand24/7accessibilityof

iGamingmayexacerbategamblingdisorders,leadingtobothdirecttreatmentcostsandbroadersocietalimpactssuchasfamilydisruptionanddepletedsavings.Manystatesarealreadyunder-resourcedtoaddressexistingproblemgamblingneeds,andtheintroductionofiGamingwouldlikelyincreasethesepressures.Theburdenofmitigationofdisorderedgamblingisbornebothprivatelyandpublicly,againloweringstates’overalltaxbenefit.

Tosummarize,thefollowingtable(republishedfromabove)showsthenettaxgain–afterthe

newiGamingtaxesarereducedbydirectlossesincasinogamingtaxandthedirect,indirect,and

2