Georgia has been having the same conversation about sports betting for several years now, and it keeps ending in roughly the same way. Bills move through committee, optimism builds among supporters, and then something stalls at the last moment. But the economic case for legalization has only gotten more concrete as neighboring states – Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia – have all moved forward and started collecting real revenue that Georgia is currently missing out on entirely. At some point, the question shifts from whether legalization makes sense to why it keeps not happening.
The scale of what Georgia is leaving on the table isn’t theoretical. Tennessee generated over $400 million in handle in its first full month of legalized mobile betting. North Carolina, which launched in early 2024, saw nine-figure wagers within its first week. Georgia bettors aren’t abstaining – they’re using offshore platforms and crossing state lines, which means all that activity generates zero tax revenue for Atlanta, zero economic activity for local businesses, and zero jobs for Georgians. The infrastructure required to build and run a legal market is itself a significant industry: companies that specialize in sports betting b2b solution services – providing odds engines, compliance systems, payment processing, and risk management to licensed operators – represent an ecosystem that creates technical employment and sustained investment wherever legal frameworks exist. That infrastructure would land here if the regulatory environment invited it.
What the tax revenue could actually fund
Projections on Georgia’s potential sports betting market vary, but the state’s profile – major professional franchises in Atlanta, a large and sports-engaged population, strong mobile adoption – consistently places it among the top-tier opportunities in any remaining unlicensed state. Conservative estimates from gambling policy analysts have placed annual handle in Georgia between $3 and $5 billion once a mature market establishes itself. At standard tax rates applied in comparable states, that translates to somewhere between $150 million and $300 million in annual state revenue.
To understand what that means in practice, consider what neighboring states are doing with those funds:
| State | Annual handle (est.) | Tax rate | Est. annual revenue | Primary allocation |
| Tennessee | $4.2B | 20% of gross | $180M+ | Education, problem gambling |
| Virginia | $3.8B | 15% of gross | $140M+ | General fund, education |
| North Carolina | $2.1B (first year) | 18% of gross | $95M+ | Education lottery fund |
| Georgia (projected) | $3–5B | TBD | $150-300M | Under discussion |
Education funding comes up most often in Georgia’s debates because the state lottery already has an established pipeline to HOPE scholarship programs. A sports betting framework modeled similarly could theoretically expand that funding base without requiring new taxes on existing economic activity.
Local businesses and the ripple effect
The direct revenue numbers are only part of the economic argument. Legal sports betting creates a category of local business that currently doesn’t exist in Georgia: licensed retail sportsbooks. These aren’t necessarily standalone destinations – the model that’s worked best in states like Iowa and Indiana involves partnerships with existing establishments. Bars, restaurants, and entertainment venues can get affiliated licenses that let them have betting kiosks or special areas for betting on their premises. The foot traffic incentive is important because people who come in to watch and bet tend to stay longer and spend more on food and drinks than people who just watch.
Atlanta specifically has a venue infrastructure that’s particularly well-positioned. The Battery at Truist Park, State Farm Arena’s surrounding district, Mercedes-Benz Stadium’s footprint – these are already hospitality-heavy environments with built-in sports audiences. A legal retail betting layer adds a revenue dimension that these businesses currently can’t access, regardless of how much money their customers are quietly wagering on phones through platforms that don’t benefit Georgia at all.
The responsible gambling framework question
Any serious discussion of legalization has to include the regulatory side, and Georgia’s delayed approach does have one advantage: the state can learn from what’s worked and what hasn’t elsewhere. States that launched without robust responsible gambling infrastructure – adequate funding for addiction services, mandatory self-exclusion registries, clear advertising restrictions – faced legitimate criticism that accelerated political pushback. Georgia has the opportunity to build those protections in from the start rather than retrofitting them after problems emerge.
The operators most interested in entering a Georgia market are generally not the ones resistant to responsible gambling requirements. A well-regulated market with clear compliance expectations is preferable to an ambiguous regulatory environment, and established operators have both the infrastructure and the institutional incentive to support consumer protection frameworks that sustain long-term market health.
None of this resolves the specific political dynamics that have kept Georgia sitting on the sideline while the market matures elsewhere. Constitutional amendments, competing interests, and genuine disagreements about gambling’s social costs are real factors. But the economic argument for thoughtful legalization has become difficult to dismiss – particularly when the alternative is watching Georgia residents fund other states’ schools, roads, and public services with money that could just as easily stay home.