Nevada gaming regulators are contemplating a significant shift in their oversight of sports wagering. At the heart of the discussion is whether third-party sports-data providers—entities increasingly vital to the betting ecosystem—should be licensed under state regulations. A recent workshop hosted by the Nevada Gaming Control Board sparked debate on the topic, with potential changes on the horizon for 2025.
The Expanding Role of Sports-Data Providers
The rise of sports wagering across the United States has brought an explosion of events, betting options, and participants. Board Chairman Kirk Hendrick raised a crucial question during the workshop: “Are we making sure that those who are involved in setting the lines and providing the data are captured within our regulatory process?”
The concern stems from the evolution of the industry. In the past, the process of setting lines and odds was straightforward—managed by licensed operators and a limited number of information services. But today, third-party providers are directly feeding betting lines and odds to sportsbooks, creating new layers of complexity.
What’s Changing?
Jim Barbee, the head of the Board’s technology division, explained that a new type of entity has emerged between traditional information services and the events themselves. These “sports-data service providers” act as intermediaries, processing massive volumes of data and transmitting it to sportsbooks.
Barbee highlighted a key risk: “There’s a little risk of having these third parties establish event information, including lines and odds that ultimately end up in front of patrons where they can place wagers.” The proposed regulations would focus on entities turning raw data into betting lines—a role currently outside the regulatory scope.
Why Licensing Matters
Proponents argue that licensing these third-party providers would improve transparency, accountability, and the state’s ability to oversee the betting industry. Barbee noted that while operators are diligent in vetting their partners, regulatory oversight could ensure additional safeguards.
Here’s what licensing could accomplish:
- Enhanced Background Checks: Licensing would allow regulators to perform their own investigations into these companies, supplementing the due diligence already conducted by operators.
- Resolution Tools: In cases where errors or disputes occur, regulators would gain direct access to third parties, enabling quicker investigations and resolutions.
- Industry Consistency: Other states, such as New Jersey, already require registration for similar service providers, setting a precedent for Nevada to follow.
Barbee framed the issue with a real-world example. If a sportsbook posts a line too early or sets odds incorrectly due to a feed error, regulators currently lack the authority to investigate third-party data sources. Licensing would close this gap, giving the state more visibility and control.
Opposition to More Regulation
Not everyone is on board with the proposed changes. Board member George Assad questioned whether additional oversight is necessary, suggesting that responsibility should rest with already-licensed entities like MGM Resorts or Wynn. “We have a lot of regulations already. Do we really need another regulation when we can go after, for example, MGM or Station Casinos or Wynn? Why do we need to be redundant?” he asked.
The concern is that overregulation could create unnecessary burdens on the industry without clear benefits. However, Hendrick and Barbee countered that the aim is not to add layers of bureaucracy but to bring unregulated entities into the fold at a low level of registration.
Industry Implications
The conversation has broad implications for major players in sports-data services, including Sportradar, Genius Sports, and Lsports. These companies provide the critical data that underpins much of the modern betting landscape, and licensing could require them to navigate new compliance requirements.
Barbee was quick to clarify that the proposal would not apply to companies that merely compile statistics. Instead, it targets those actively involved in generating betting lines—a distinction that may limit the scope of the regulation.
A Look Ahead
While no decisions have been made, the workshop marked an important step in the process. Any potential changes would likely take effect in 2025, giving stakeholders time to weigh in on the proposal. As the industry continues to evolve, Nevada’s approach to regulating sports-data providers could set a precedent for other states grappling with similar issue.
