The US sports betting industry has grown significantly in recent years. In 2021, Americans spent a total of $57 billion on sports betting. By 2025, this figure had surged to $167 billion, a growth rate of roughly 192 percent over four years.
Since 2018, when the Supreme Court overturned the federal prohibition on sports gambling, most states have decided to permit the activity to some degree. Today, 39 states and the District of Columbia have legalized sports betting, with 32 states and the District of Columbia allowing residents to bet on sports online or from their phones.
As the industry has expanded, policymakers across the political spectrum have shown interest in both the potential benefits of legalized betting, including state revenue, and the possible risks for individuals, households, and communities.
Despite the industry’s rapid growth, reliable data on who is betting on sports—and why—are surprisingly limited. Much of what we know comes from industry reports or incomplete surveys that do not provide a complete picture of people’s betting experiences.
To address this gap, the Urban Institute fielded a nationally representative survey (N = 3,194) in January 2026. We asked respondents about their general financial attitudes and behaviors and their experiences with sports betting.
Key Findings
- People primarily bet on sports to win money, have fun, and socialize. Most who bet on sports do so relatively infrequently, with small amounts of money, and with little impact on their financial lives.
- But 12 percent of sports bettors say they have saved less money than they would have if they were not betting. Nineteen percent of sports bettors with low incomes (below $50,000) and 15 percent of young sports bettors (ages 18 to 29) report this.
- People who bet on sports via online or mobile channels tend to bet more frequently, spend more money, and make more complex bets than people who bet on sports only in person at casinos, racetracks, or other locations.
- Online sports bettors are also 15 times more likely to say they have missed a bill payment than people who bet on sports only in person at casinos, racetracks, or other locations (5 percent versus 0.3 percent).
Though most people who bet on sports do so relatively infrequently and with few financial consequences, a sizeable minority report negative effects on their financial lives. These findings have important implications for policymakers, regulators, and financial services providers seeking to develop effective guardrails for this rapidly growing industry.
Sports bettors skew young, male, and higher income
For the purposes of this analysis we look at all sports betting activity, whether done online through betting apps or prediction markets or at physical locations like casinos, racetracks, or betting kiosks. Using this definition, we find that 11 percent of US adults have bet on sports in the past 12 months.
Sports bettors are more likely to be young and male and to have higher incomes. Young adults (ages 18 to 29) are more likely to bet on sports than adults 30 or older (17 percent versus 10 percent). Men are more likely than women to bet on sports (13 percent versus 9 percent). Fourteen percent of respondents with the highest household incomes (at or above $150,000) bet on sports, compared with just 8 percent of those with the lowest household incomes (under $50,000).
Sports betting activity occurs across multiple channels
Nearly half (46 percent) of people who have bet on sports in the past 12 months have done so only through online or mobile channels, including sports betting apps or prediction markets. Roughly a third (35 percent) of sports bettors have bet on sports only at in-person locations, such as a casino or racetrack. The remaining fifth (20 percent) have bet on sports through both online and in-person channels.
Online Betting: Betting Apps Versus Prediction Markets
Legal online sports betting occurs through two primary channels: sports betting apps (such as FanDuel and DraftKings) and prediction markets (such as Kalshi and Polymarket). The channels appear similar, but they are governed by distinct regulatory frameworks.
Sports betting apps are regulated at the state level. Companies that operate online or mobile sports books must comply with state gaming policies, such as those related to licensing, taxes, allowable bet types, and consumer protections.
Prediction markets are currently regulated at the federal level. Companies that operate prediction markets fall under the oversight of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Under this framework, sports bets are considered “event contracts” and regulated as financial instruments.
Why this matters: Sports betting apps and prediction markets offer a nearly identical experience, but the fragmented regulatory approach creates gaps in oversight. Under the current CFTC, prediction markets face less regulation than state-regulated sports books. This allows people, including those living in states where sports betting is illegal, to place bets through channels that lack state-mandated safeguards, such as age verification requirements. It also means that states forgo valuable tax revenue tied to regulated betting activity. Some states are currently challenging the CFTC’s claim of exclusive jurisdiction over prediction markets.
A majority of sports bettors bet infrequently and with small sums
Most people who bet on sports do so relatively infrequently. Nearly half (48 percent) say they’ve bet just “once or twice” in the past 12 months, while 38 percent say they bet weekly or monthly. Only 4 percent of sports bettors say they bet daily.
A majority of sports bettors bet relatively small amounts of money. More than half (55 percent) have bet less than $100 on sports in the past 12 months. But a sizeable minority (11 percent) have bet more than $1,000 in the past year.
The most common type of sports bet is a single-game bet, a straightforward bet that involves betting on the outcome of a game or match. Seventy-one percent of sports bettors have placed this type of bet in the past 12 months.
Other popular types of bets include parlays, prop bets, live bets, futures bets, pooled bets, and teaser bets. These types of bets add layers of complexity by combining outcomes, speeding up decisionmaking, or altering the risk-reward relationship.
Most bet on sports to win money and have fun
More than two-thirds (67 percent) of people who have bet on sports in the past 12 months say they have primarily done so to win money, despite the fact that the vast majority of people do not make money betting on sports.
Just over half (52 percent) of sports bettors say they bet because it's fun or exciting. Nearly a quarter (24 percent) say they bet to socialize with friends and family. The same share say they bet on sports because they received promotional credits, which sportsbooks provide to incentivize betting activity.
Some sports bettors report saving less because of betting
A majority of sports bettors (65 percent) say betting has no impact on their personal finances. Few bettors report negative financial consequences from betting, such as missing bill payments (3 percent) or borrowing from friends and family (3 percent). But these data may understate the true frequency of these challenges given people’s tendency to underreport behaviors that are considered socially undesirable.
Even though small shares of sports bettors report financial challenges, a significant minority (12 percent) say they have saved less money than they would have if they were not betting on sports. Nineteen percent of bettors with annual household incomes below $50,000 and 15 percent of bettors under 30 report this, suggesting that sports betting is taking a disproportionate toll on the financial well-being of vulnerable consumers.
Online sports bettors bet more intensively than in-person bettors
We find notable differences in the betting behaviors and outcomes of people who bet on sports via online or mobile channels and those who only bet on sports in person at casinos, racetracks, and other locations. Compared with in-person bettors, online bettors are more likely to report the following:
Frequent betting. Online bettors are less likely than in-person bettors to have bet just once or twice in the past 12 months (37 percent versus 70 percent) and more likely to have bet monthly, weekly, or daily.
More money bet. Online bettors are less likely than in-person bettors to have bet less than $100 in the past 12 months (47 percent versus 70 percent) and more likely to have bet $100 to $499.
Complex bets. Online bettors are more likely to have placed nearly all kinds of bets, including more complex and risky bets, such as parlay bets, prop bets, and live bets.
Financial challenges. Online bettors are approximately 15 times more likely than in-person bettors to say they have delayed or skipped a bill payment because they spent money on sports betting, though the overall incidence rate is low for both groups (5 percent versus 0.3 percent). In addition, 15 percent of online bettors say they have saved less money than they would have if they were not betting on sports, with small percentages reporting other financial challenges.
Online Sports Bettors Bet More Frequently, Bet More Money, Make More Complex Bets, and Report More Financial Challenges Than In-Person Bettors
Betting frequency, money spent, bet types, and financial challenges among online versus in-person bettors
Source: Urban Institute Fintech Survey (January 2026).
Notes: n = 206–208 for online bettors across the four survey questions. n = 123 for in-person bettors. Sample sizes differ by survey question because of nonresponses. This figure shows responses that were part of the following survey questions: “Approximately how often did you bet on sports in the past 12 months?” (first figure), “How much money have you bet on sports in the past 12 months?” (second figure), “Have you made any of the following types of sports bets in the past 12 months?” (third figure), and “In the past 12 months, have you...” (fourth figure). Online sports bettors are those who used online or mobile channels, including a sports betting app or prediction market. In-person sports bettors are those who only bet at a physical location, such as a casino, racetrack, or betting kiosk. Percentages are weighted by poststratification and calculated among respondents with nonmissing responses to the relevant questions. Some differences between groups in this figure may not be statistically significant. All differences discussed in the text are statistically significant at a 5 percent level, using a survey design–adjusted two-sample t-test.
A consistent regulatory framework would benefit bettors and the industry
After a rush to legalize sports betting in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision, many states have recently sought to regulate the industry. Kentucky has passed legislation that would increase the legal age for sports betting from 18 to 21, New Jersey has considered eliminating microbets and in-game wagers, and Ohio has considered capping bets at $100 and banning sports betting on mobile apps.
Federal and state policymakers are also exploring how to regulate loopholes around prediction markets. In March 2026, Senators Adam Schiff (D-CA) and John Curtis (R-UT) introduced bipartisan legislation that would prohibit prediction markets from accepting sports-related transactions. States including Illinois, Massachusetts, and Minnesota are also considering regulating or have passed bills regulating sports betting activity on prediction markets, though they are likely to encounter pushback from federal regulators.
Policymakers and regulators should strive for consumer protections that allow bettors to continue enjoying sports betting, while protecting them from harm. This could involve
- limiting the types of high-frequency, high-risk bets that have been linked to impulsive betting and gambling addiction,
- protecting young people by enforcing age restrictions and limiting gambling on college sports,
- prohibiting sports books from employing aggressive marketing tactics, and
- ensuring people can seek support for problem gambling behaviors without stigma.
In addition, financial services providers are uniquely positioned to build safeguards into the financial system itself. For example,
- banks could ban the use of credit cards on sports betting sites and credit card providers could allow customers to block gambling transactions, an option currently offered in the UK;
- fintech companies could create more separation between betting products and investment vehicles and offer more transparency around gambling risks and misleading promotions such as “risk-free” bets; and
- finance professionals like financial coaches and personal bankers could be trained to recognize signs of gambling-related financial distress and connect people with support services.
Given the rapid growth of this nascent industry, developing a balanced regulatory framework will be critical to ensuring people can continue to enjoy a fast-growing pastime without negative financial consequences.
ABOUT THE DATA
In January 2026, the Urban Institute fielded a survey through the Understanding America Study (UAS), a national online consumer panel administered by the University of Southern California. The survey was fielded to 6,413 adults, 3,194 of whom completed it. Poststratification weights were generated to bring the sample in line with the demographics of the national population.
All differences in outcomes between groups reported in the text of this article are statistically significant at a 5 percent level, using a survey design–adjusted two-sample t-test. Where multiple comparisons were made, p values were adjusted using a Bonferroni correction. The study’s limitations include potential nonresponse bias, social desirability bias, and limited sample sizes for subgroup analysis.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was produced through the Financial Well-Being Hub and funded in part by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. We are grateful to them and to all our funders, who make it possible for Urban to advance its mission.
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Funders do not determine research findings or the insights and recommendations of our experts. More information on our funding principles is available here.
We thank Lucy Dadayan, Jonathan Cohen, Alex De Marco, Maia Berlow, and Signe-Mary McKernan for their expert review and thoughtful feedback and Aaron R. Williams for his data and methodology review.
