Globally, sports betting has become the “number one factor fueling corruption in sports.” Although the United States has not been as affected by this problem as other countries (at least in modern times), the recent widespread legalization of sports betting in America—accompanied by a surge in sports gambling, especially online—might change that. Thirty-eight U.S. states now permit sports betting, and six more are considering following suit. In 2023, Americans placed roughly $120 billion worth of bets with legal sportsbooks, a near $30 billion increase from 2022, and the percentage of Americans who bet on sports has grown to 39%, up from 19% in 2022. As sports gambling proliferates, so too does the risk of competition manipulation for monetary gain. A slate of recent scandals provides anecdotal evidence that this is indeed a serious problem. For example, in 2024, NBA player Jontay Porter was banned from the NBA for his involvement in a gambling scheme that included tipping off certain bettors that he would exit a game early and underperform sportsbooks’ expectations. In 2023, the University of Alabama head baseball coach was fired for providing information that Alabama would lose a certain game to a gambler who then bet on that outcome.

A comprehensive, or even global, solution to this problem would be ideal, but such a solution will likely take time to enact and implement. Regulators ought not wait. Instead, in the near term, state regulators can and should target a subset of the problem by restricting forms of betting that present an especially significant risk of competition manipulation. One area that deserves particular attention is the proliferation of “prop bets” on individual athletes at the collegiate level.

Unlike betting on the outcome of an event, prop bets allow bettors to wager on whether (or to what extent) particular events will occur during a competition. These types of bets can include the number of rebounds a basketball player will record, the number of yards a football player will rush, whether a golfer will birdie, par, or bogey a certain hole, or, famously, which Gatorade color the winning Super Bowl team will pour on its coach. These types of bets are popular and becoming more so. In 2022, one major online betting platform estimated that prop bets were projected to account for 50% of the bets it received, a 30% increase from 2019.

Prop bets present an increased risk of competition manipulation through “spot-fixing.” While traditional “match-fixing” involves influencing the ultimate outcome of a competition (who wins a match or tournament), spot-fixing involves inducing a player, coach, or referee to ensure that a particular event occurs during a game. Because spot-fixing does not necessarily affect the outcome of the competition, it can be much more difficult to detect than match-fixing. Players and coaches may also be more willing to collaborate in spot-fixing, because doing so does not entail sacrificing victory in the overall event. Additionally, spot-fixing is easier to arrange because it typically only involves one “inside” actor, such as an individual player, whereas match-fixing, at least in a team sport, would usually require the collaboration of several members of a team. Because prop bets allow gamblers to wager on an individual event, they make spot-fixing at attractive option for corrupt actors.

This problem is particularly acute at the collegiate level. Although the most successful college athletes may profit sufficiently from marketing their name, image, and likeness (NIL) that they are less tempted to engage in corrupt activities for monetary gain, most college athletes don’t receive lucrative NIL deals, and the fact that their teammates are making large sums from NIL deals may make these athletes even more tempted to manipulate their performance for an amount of money that “can help support their family.”

The solution to the problem, at least at the college level, is straightforward: States should ban or significantly limit sportsbooks from offering prop bets on how individual college athletes will perform. The NCAA has endorsed such a ban, and some states have already taken this step. All others should follow suit.

Critics understandably worry that banning these prop bets will only drive bettors to illegal or offshore betting operations, making detection even more difficult without yielding the intended benefit. That’s a legitimate concern. At the same time, the evidence to date suggests that widespread legalization of gambling has increased competition manipulation in U.S. sports. Accepting legalization while prohibiting prop bets on individual college athletes seems unlikely to cause a widespread migration to the black market. Further, states may be able to blunt that concern by narrowly tailoring the prohibition, at least to start. For example, several states ban prop bets only for in-state college teams rather than outright.

There is good reason to also ban prop bets on individual professional athletes, but regulators would be justified in declining to do so, at least in the near term. Although the danger posed by prop bets exists at the professional level, the average professional athlete tends to earn substantially more than their college counterpart, which reduces the risk of spot-fixing for monetary gain. For instance, an NFL player making the league-minimum salary ($795,000 in 2024), has a lesser incentive to risk their salary by spot-fixing than the mine-run college athlete, whose average NIL worth ranges from $1,000 to $10,000. Additionally, the number of college athletes in the United States (over 480,000) greatly exceeds the number of professional athletes (roughly 15,000). Fewer professional athletes means that bad actors have a smaller sea of fish to attempt to exploit. Further, although the concern that banning prop bets will push bettors to the black market is overstated, a ban at both the professional and collegiate levels would raise the specter of doing so. None of these reasons are dispositive against a ban at the professional level. At the same time, regulators are warranted in prioritizing a collegiate level ban given the comparatively higher benefits and lower risks.

State regulators would be wise to ban or limit prop bets on collegiate sports. This would not be an adequate substitute for more comprehensive measures aimed at preventing competition manipulation. But regulators shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Curtailing prop bets in college sports is a good place to start cracking down on this form of sports corruption.