Another layer of complication for legalised online gambling in Pennsylvania?

It may be a political move to pre-empt opposition from the state lottery, but Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati has just added another layer of complexity to the increasingly confusing Pennsylvanian online gambling legalisation debate by suggesting that the State Lottery could make a better job of overseeing online gambling than the state gaming board.

The tweet that revved up the debate was made by Scarnati earlier this week, when he wrote:

“It appears that the PA Lottery could administer iGaming more efficiently than the gaming industry & still make substantial profits.”

The Poker Players Alliance was among the first to comment on the Senator’s tweet, pointing out that such an arrangement would effectively create a monopoly…bad for quality and competitiveness.

The action group also suggested that the lack of experience would possibly result in the lottery having to outsource operational services at a cost, further delays in implementation, and the loss of tens of millions of dollars in licence fees from state land casino operators who should rightfully operate online gambling under the oversight of the state gaming authorities.

Other critics have opined that putting the lottery in charge of online gambling puts the lottery into an increasingly competitive position with the 12 land casino operators

Respected online gambling analyst and author Chris Groves weighed in with his opinion, which essentially is in agreement with the PPA position.

Groves says that the likely outcome of such a proposal would be damage to Pennsylvania’s casino industry and diminished revenue for the state, a combination that will ultimately leave Pennsylvania taxpayers holding the bag.

He explains that Pennsylvania could immediately lose over $100 million in upfront licence fees from land casino operators opting to run online gambling activity, whereas the state is unlikely to make a tenth of that from lottery supplier fees…and that does not take into account renewal fees in the future.

Groves’ well-argued appreciation of the issue is worth reading in full and can be accessed here: