Ohio Proposes Tax Hike to Fund Paycor Stadium — But Says Most Won’t Pay More
Trending
Ohio lawmakers are reigniting debate over who should foot the bill for professional sports stadiums. With $600 million already slated for a new Cleveland Browns facility, attention is now turning to Cincinnati's Paycor Stadium. No funds have yet been allocated to the Bengals, prompting new proposals to create a permanent state fund fueled not by general taxes, but by sports betting revenue. Governor Mike DeWine supports doubling the current 20% tax rate on bets to 40%, while State Senator Bill Blessing has offered a 36% compromise.
Either way, lawmakers estimate the fund could collect up to $160 million annually, to be distributed to teams through a state-appointed commission tasked with reviewing funding requests and ensuring private sector investment is included. Officials argue the fund would promote fiscal responsibility and accountability while creating a predictable, dedicated pipeline to support Ohio's professional sports infrastructure.
But raising gambling taxes doesn't happen in a vacuum. If the increase spills over into other gambling-related sectors, like iGaming or sports betting, players may seek relief at sites based offshore, as you can access here. Known for high-value bonuses, low wagering requirements, and consistent cashback promotions, these overseas sites appeal to users looking to stretch their money further. It's a clear example of how tax policy changes can shift consumer behavior in subtle but impactful ways.
Despite the proposed hike, Blessing maintains that the average Ohioan won't see any increase in their taxes. He argues that the financial impact would be limited to sports bettors, making it a targeted approach. By isolating the cost to those participating in gambling, the state can fund stadium projects without touching income tax or property tax revenues.
That framing may help lawmakers avoid political fallout while still appeasing sports franchises that increasingly rely on public-private partnerships. It also sidesteps the kind of long-term resentment seen in past stadium deals funded by broad-based tax increases. Many voters still recall the 1996 sales tax increase that helped fund the original Paycor Stadium, a decision that drew criticism for years.
This isn't uncharted territory. States like Maryland and Illinois have taken similar approaches by taxing lottery proceeds or sports betting revenues to fund stadium construction or improvements. Ohio's version simply channels growing gambling profits into a defined sports infrastructure fund, giving teams a process to request public support with mandatory private investment in return. The structure is meant to create financial predictability while limiting unchecked handouts.
Northern Kentucky University business professor Joe Cobbs sees the structure as a way to bring clarity to how funds are distributed. He believes it allows the state to set firm boundaries on where gambling revenue goes, reducing uncertainty around future stadium funding requests.
That kind of boundary could reduce the free-for-all of stadium funding requests and help prioritize projects with public backing and long-term viability. It could also help avoid duplicative spending or political favoritism as more teams come forward seeking help. Transparency, Cobbs noted, may be key to keeping public trust intact.
Still, the road isn't clear. The House stripped the proposal from its budget draft, and supporters must now fight to reinsert it before the June 30 deadline. The Senate may push to bring the measure back, but it's unclear how much support it will garner in conference committee negotiations.
The core issue remains: who pays, and who benefits? For now, lawmakers insist the average Ohioan won’t feel the pinch. But for gamblers and the companies they play with, the financial landscape could look very different very soon.