Why Some Land-Based Casinos Oppose Online Casinos
Some land-based casinos oppose online casinos for one blunt reason: money, and the control that comes with it. The operators leading the fight are convinced that legal iGaming will cannibalize their floor revenue, peel away their most loyal regulars, cut casino-floor jobs, and hand the customer relationship to a few national brands they cannot control. That tension is a big part of why real-money online casinos are legal in only eight states, while online sports betting has spread to dozens. Here is what is actually driving the resistance, and whether the fears hold up to the data.
What the Opposition Is Really Afraid Of
The opposition comes down to a handful of overlapping fears: cannibalization, loyalty disruption, job losses, and a loss of market share and control over local players. Each one is rational from the perspective of a company that spent decades and hundreds of millions of dollars building a physical property. And each one shows up, over and over, in the testimony and lobbying campaigns fighting iGaming bills in statehouse after statehouse, even as online casinos grow faster than sportsbooks in the states that already allow them.
- Cannibalization: the worry that every dollar wagered online is a dollar pulled off the casino floor.
- Loyalty disruption: the fear that online play breaks the habit loop that keeps a casino’s best customers coming back in person.
- Job losses: the argument that an app does not need dealers, cooks, or cage staff, so legal iGaming costs floor jobs.
- Market share: the concern that online revenue concentrates in a few national digital brands instead of the local operator.
- Loss of local control: the strategic fear of losing the direct relationship with regional and tribal customers who used to belong to the property alone.
Fear #1: Cannibalization of the Casino Floor
Cannibalization is the fear that online play simply moves spending off the floor rather than adding to it, and it is the opposition’s central economic argument. It is also genuinely unsettled, because the two most-cited studies reach opposite conclusions and both were paid for by interested parties. Read them side by side and the gap is hard to miss.
| Study (and who funded it) | What it concluded |
|---|---|
| The Innovation Group, commissioned by the National Association Against iGaming (anti-iGaming) | Land-based revenue falls roughly 16% on average after iGaming launches, with about 5,000 casino jobs lost and state economic-output hits of $300 million to $600 million. |
| Eilers & Krejcik Gaming, commissioned by iDEA Growth (pro-iGaming) | Land-based revenue actually rose, by about 2.4% per quarter on average, after online launched, because online and retail draw different players on different occasions. |
So who is right? The honest answer is that each side built its model on a different assumption about substitution. Opponents assume online spend comes straight out of the floor; supporters say online expands the total market by reaching players who were never going to drive to a casino in the first place. The macro picture leans toward the supporters: U.S. commercial gaming revenue has kept setting annual records even as iGaming expanded, according to the American Gaming Association. You can read the opposition’s economic case directly in the National Association Against iGaming study, then weigh it against the pro-iGaming findings from iDEA Growth. Either way, treat both headline numbers as advocacy, not gospel.
Fear #2: Losing the Loyal, High-Value Regular
The second fear is that online play breaks the loyalty loop that keeps a casino’s best customers walking through the door. A regular who once drove in every Friday, grabbed dinner at the steakhouse, and earned comps toward a hotel suite can now get the same slots and table games on a phone. The casino keeps the bet, but loses everything that used to come with the visit.
That matters because the on-property model was never really about the wager alone. It monetizes the entire trip: food and beverage, hotel nights, show tickets, parking, and the VIP host relationships that turn a good customer into a great one. A bet placed from the couch captures none of that ancillary spend. For a destination resort or a locals’ casino, the visit is the product, and the loyalty program is the moat.
A floor visit bundles the bet with dining, hotel, entertainment, and host-driven comps. Online play unbundles all of that and keeps only the wager, which is exactly the part operators worry least about losing.
Fear #3: Jobs on the Casino Floor
The jobs argument is why labor unions, not just operators, have joined the opposition. A physical casino employs dealers, cage cashiers, security officers, housekeepers, cooks, and servers, and those jobs exist because people show up in person. An app does not tip a cocktail server or staff a blackjack pit, so unions and labor-aligned operators frame iGaming as a threat to payrolls rather than a new product line.
The opposition puts hard numbers on it. The Innovation Group study commissioned by the anti-iGaming coalition projected roughly 5,000 casino job cuts tied to online expansion, including estimates of about 4,900 jobs in New York and 4,700 in Illinois by 2029 if those states legalize. Supporters counter that the floors have not emptied in the states that already allow both, that iGaming funds the same tax base that pays for public services, and that online operations create their own technology, marketing, and support roles. Both things can be true: the jobs that disappear and the jobs that appear are rarely the same jobs, or in the same places.
Fear #4: Market Share and the Loss of Local Control
The last fear is the most strategic: online casino legalization tends to hand market share to a few national brands, and a regional operator can lose control of its own customers in the process. Online revenue is dominated by digital-first giants, and a local casino that goes online is often renting someone else’s platform while competing against FanDuel and DraftKings for the very regulars who used to be loyal to the building.
This is the tell in the whole debate. The biggest casino companies, MGM Resorts and Caesars Entertainment, embraced online years ago because they had the scale and the brands to win there. The loudest opponents tend to be regional operators and racetrack-casino companies that do not have a dominant national online product, so for them iGaming looks less like a growth channel and more like inviting bigger competitors into their living room. The fight, in other words, is often less about whether the pie shrinks and more about who gets to slice it.
Tribal operators raise a sharper version of the same concern. Many tribes view online expansion as a threat to the exclusivity their state compacts grant them and, by extension, to their sovereignty and the local revenue that funds tribal services. When Maine moved to authorize online casinos under the exclusivity of its Wabanaki tribes, the proposal drew opposition from commercial operators precisely because control of the channel was at stake. It is the same instinct that fuels the broader debate over tribal-exclusive online casino models: whoever controls the platform controls the customer.
This Fight Is Not New
Organized casino opposition to online gambling goes back more than a decade, so none of this is a 2026 invention. The template was set by the late Las Vegas Sands founder Sheldon Adelson, who poured money into the Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling and backed a 2014 federal bill, the Restoration of America’s Wire Act, that would have banned most forms of online gambling outright.
That bill never passed, and a 2018 Department of Justice memo on the Wire Act muddied the waters further without settling them. The modern version of the campaign is the National Association Against iGaming, launched in February 2025 by a group that includes The Cordish Companies, Churchill Downs, Red Rock Resorts, Monarch Casino & Resort, Jack Entertainment, and Gaming & Leisure Properties, alongside labor unions and municipalities. Different coalition, same core argument: protect the physical property and the local economy around it.
So, Are the Fears Justified?
Partly, and which part matters depends on the fear. The cannibalization case is the weakest: the better evidence suggests legal online casinos are more additive than purely substitutive, and overall casino revenue has kept climbing in states that allow both. The control and market-share fears are the most justified, because online genuinely does shift power toward a few national brands, and a regional or tribal operator really can lose its grip on its own players. The jobs question lands in the middle, where the honest answer is “it depends on the state and the operator.”
For players, this is the quiet reason the map looks the way it does. If your state still bans online casinos while the one next door offers them, incumbent-operator opposition is a large part of why, and the patchwork of state gambling laws reflects who won each statehouse fight. Most 2026 bills stalled before launch, so expect the same arguments to return in the 2027 sessions. The opposition is not really about whether online gambling can be run responsibly. It is about who controls the customer once the bet leaves the building.
Play Safe: Gambling should be fun, not stressful. Set limits, stick to your budget, and never chase losses. If you or someone you know has a gambling problem, call 1-800-MY-RESET or visit ncpgambling.org. For more resources, see our Responsible Gambling page.
Frequently Asked Questions
A few quick answers to the questions players ask most about the land-based versus online casino fight.
Do online casinos actually take money away from land-based casinos?
The evidence is mixed, and it depends who paid for the study. Research funded by iGaming supporters found land-based revenue rose modestly after online casinos launched, because the two reach different players, while a study funded by the opposition found a roughly 16% drop. The clearest signal is that overall U.S. commercial gaming revenue has kept setting records even as online casinos expanded, which suggests online is more additive than purely cannibalistic.
Which casino companies are fighting online casino legalization?
The most organized opposition comes from the National Association Against iGaming, launched in February 2025. Its members include regional and racetrack-casino operators such as The Cordish Companies, Churchill Downs, Red Rock Resorts, Monarch Casino & Resort, and Jack Entertainment, along with labor unions and municipalities. Notably, national giants like MGM Resorts and Caesars Entertainment are not leading the fight, because they already run large online operations of their own.
Why are online casinos legal in so few states?
Real-money online casinos are legal in just eight states, far fewer than online sports betting, largely because of opposition from land-based operators, labor unions, and some tribes. Their concerns about cannibalization, jobs, and loss of control have stalled most iGaming bills, and several 2026 proposals failed to advance before the sessions ended.
If I prefer playing in person, does online casino legalization affect me?
It can, in small ways. States with legal online casinos often use the extra tax revenue to support programs that also benefit retail gaming, and operators frequently link their loyalty programs across online and in-person play, so your comps can follow you both ways. The in-person experience itself is not going anywhere, since the dining, entertainment, and social side of a casino visit is exactly what online cannot replicate.
