A recent study commissioned by Tax Relief Nebraska indicates that the legalization of online sports betting in Nebraska could generate nearly $87 million in tax revenue for the state over the next five years. Advocates are pushing to place this measure on the ballot for voters in 2026.
The research conducted by Eilers & Krejcik Gaming suggests that approximately 70% of the generated revenue could be allocated towards property tax credits, mirroring the current distribution for casino gambling. This would equate to around $61 million in tax relief during the same timeframe.
Proponents of the initiative argue that this additional revenue could provide much-needed stability to the state budget, especially as lawmakers face a structural deficit. They also highlight the importance of recapturing funds that currently flow to neighboring states where online sports betting is already permitted.
“We have to find the revenue somewhere,” remarked Jordan McGrain, one of the petition sponsors.
On the other hand, opponents contend that the anticipated financial benefits are too minimal to have a significant impact on property taxes or the state's overall fiscal health. State Senator Brad von Gillern, who chairs the Legislature’s Revenue Committee, pointed out that the estimated returns would represent only about 1% of the existing property tax credit program each year.
“If people are voting for the online gambling initiative believing that it’s going to substantially change their property tax bill, they’re going to be sadly disappointed,” von Gillern stated.
Attempts to legalize online sports betting in Nebraska have faced numerous setbacks in the state legislature. A recent proposal, Legislative Bill 421, introduced by State Senators Stanley Clouse and Eliot Bostar, estimated around $70 million in revenue over four years, but the bill did not progress.
Clouse, who has expressed reservations about gambling, argued that legalization would at least expand the state’s tax base and provide lawmakers with more authority over regulation and taxation. The proposal also aimed to allocate 2.5% of revenues to the state’s Compulsive Gambling Fund.
At the time, Clouse and other supporters of LB 421 anticipated that if the Legislature failed to pass the bill, there would be sufficient public backing for a separate ballot initiative, which would be less subject to legislative control.
Critics of legalization continue to voice concerns regarding the social implications of gambling, questioning whether the potential economic advantages outweigh the associated risks.