Washington Shouldn't Decide Alabama's Betting Laws

As someone who works every day in security and risk management, I’ve learned that one-size-fits-all solutions rarely work. Whether we’re talking about public safety, private security, or regulatory policy, decisions are most effective when they’re made close to the communities they affect. That’s why Alabama, not the federal government, should decide if and how sports betting is handled in our state.

Alabama does not currently permit legal, online sports betting through state-licensed operators. That choice reflects our laws, our culture, and the judgment of elected officials accountable to Alabama voters. People may disagree on whether sports betting should ever be legalized here, but we should all agree that the decision belongs at the state level.

Recently, federal regulators have shown increasing interest in inserting themselves into gaming policy through backdoor mechanisms that bypass state authority. These efforts threaten to undermine the constitutional balance that gives states the power to regulate gambling within their borders. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that balance in 2018, when it made clear that gambling policy is a matter for states, not Washington bureaucrats.

From a security and compliance perspective, federal overreach creates real risks. States that choose to legalize sports betting do so with clear regulatory frameworks. They require licensing, background checks, consumer protections, age verification, and investments in responsible gaming programs. These safeguards exist because states understand their own

enforcement capabilities and public safety needs.

That’s what makes the rise of unregulated prediction markets so concerning. These platforms allow wagers on sporting events while sidestepping state gaming laws entirely. They operate outside traditional oversight structures, avoid state taxes, and are not held to the same consumer protection standards as licensed sports books. In my line of work, gaps in oversight are where problems arise. When activities that look like gambling are allowed to operate without clear accountability, enforcement becomes harder, consumers face greater risks, and bad actors find opportunities to exploit the system.

Allowing federally sanctioned loopholes doesn’t make anyone safer; it just weakens existing protections. Senator Katie Britt is a strong proponent of these protections, especially when it comes to children in Alabama. The best way to protect all of our residents is to keep the decision around gambling here at home.

Even for Alabamians who oppose legal sports betting, federal involvement should be troubling. If Washington can override state gaming decisions today, it sets a precedent that extends far beyond betting. Tomorrow, it could be other areas traditionally regulated by states, from licensing and commerce to public safety and law enforcement priorities.

States are not obstacles to good policy; they are laboratories of democracy. Some states have chosen to legalize and regulate sports betting. Others have chosen not to. That diversity reflects local values and priorities, and it should be respected. Alabama’s leaders are in the best position to weigh the potential benefits, risks, and enforcement challenges of any gambling policy changes.

If Alabama ever revisits sports betting, it should be through a transparent, state-led process that includes input from law enforcement, regulators, community leaders, and voters. What should not happen is a quiet erosion of state authority through federal action that ignores local realities.

Strong security depends on clear rules, accountable oversight, and respect for jurisdiction. On sports betting, Alabama deserves nothing less. The decision should remain where it belongs, with the people of Alabama and the leaders they elect to represent them.

Eric Hare serves as CEO of Global K9 Protection Group.

Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Alabama Gazette staff or publishers.