Meanwhile, the Senate had approved increasing the tax to 36%, sparking strong pushback from operators and some legislators. With both chambers presenting different plans, the budget must now go to a conference committee.
Bettors and businesses alike are watching closely, as the final decision will shape the North Carolina sports betting landscape and funding for universities and youth programs.
House Budget Keeps Tax at 18%
The House budget proposal keeps the sports betting tax at 18%, maintaining the rate set when betting launched in March 2024. Instead of raising taxes, the plan changes how the money is distributed:
- $1 million to universities in Division I without football
- $300,000 to each Division II school
- $3 million for the Youth Outdoor Engagement Commission
- $10 million for the Major Events, Games and Attractions Fund
- 20% of remaining revenue for all UNC schools and 50% for those with Division I football, with the balance to the state general fund
The House also adds the University of North Carolina and NC State to the list of beneficiaries. Lawmakers argue that this structure supports education and local attractions without burdening operators further.
Supporters say it keeps North Carolina competitive with neighboring states that tax at similar levels.
Senate Proposes 36% Tax Rate
In contrast, the Senate plan would double the sports betting tax to 36% and adjust the funding split. Under this version, UNC and NC State must schedule games against other in-state schools to qualify for their share.
Senate backers claim the higher rate would generate extra revenue for the state’s budget and educational needs.
Sportsbooks in North Carolina and lobby groups have urged lawmakers to reject the hike. They warn that doubling the tax could drive bettors to illegal markets or neighboring states with lower rates.
Americans for Tax Reform, led by Grover Norquist, released a statement against the increase, calling it a “job killer” that would harm North Carolina’s growing sports betting industry.
Following the Senate vote last month, the two versions head to a joint conference committee. If legislators cannot find middle ground, unresolved differences could delay the budget’s final passage.
Lawmakers have until June to agree on a unified plan before the new fiscal year begins.
