To amend sections 123.28, 123.281, 5753.021, and 5753.031 and to enact section 123.282 of the Revised Code to increase the sports gaming tax, to allocate revenue from the increased tax to fund sports venues and interscholastic athletics, and to create a commission to evaluate projects and award sports venue funds.
SB150 would increase Ohio’s sports gaming tax rate from 20% to 36% and direct the resulting revenue to several new and existing state funds. The bill keeps the current sports gaming revenue fund structure but changes how the remaining revenue is distributed after refunds and administrative costs are paid. Under the proposal, most of the revenue would still support K-12 education, but a substantial share would be redirected to a new sports venue redevelopment fund and a new interscholastic athletics fund, with a smaller share continuing to support problem sports gaming efforts.
The bill also creates a sports venue redevelopment commission to review and approve projects funded by the new sports venue redevelopment fund. That fund could be used for renovation or construction of Ohio sports facilities owned by the state or a political subdivision, so long as the facility’s primary purpose is to host professional or minor league sports and the team commits to playing a majority of home games there. The commission would evaluate projects based on factors such as seating capacity, attendance, facility size, age, public use, lease terms, and nonrelocation agreements, and could fund up to 40% of a project’s total cost, excluding site acquisition.
In addition to the new tax and funding structure, SB150 amends existing law governing state support for cultural and sports facilities. It preserves and updates provisions on cooperative use agreements, local contribution requirements, and limits on state funding for sports facilities, while carving out an exception for the new sports venue redevelopment fund. The bill also continues to require certain conditions for state support of motorsports complexes and tennis facilities, including long-term lease commitments and assurances of sanctioned events.
The overall impact of the bill would be to expand the state’s role in financing sports-related infrastructure and athletics by using higher sports gaming tax receipts to support venue projects and school athletics. It would also alter the statutory distribution of sports gaming revenue, creating a dedicated funding stream for venue redevelopment and interscholastic athletics while reducing the share going to education compared with the current statutory formula. The bill would amend sections 123.28, 123.281, 5753.021, and 5753.031 and enact new section 123.282 of the Revised Code.
No committee transcript or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment or identified opposition in the supplied materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to appeal to supporters of school athletics and sports facility investment, while likely raising concerns about diverting sports gaming revenue away from general education funding and about using public funds to support professional sports venues.
SB150 would raise the sports gaming tax and substantially revise how sports gaming revenue is allocated under Ohio law. It would create a new sports venue redevelopment fund and interscholastic athletics fund, establish a sports venue redevelopment commission, and authorize state support for eligible sports facility renovation or construction projects. The bill would also amend existing statutes governing the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission’s authority over cultural and sports projects, including the conditions under which state funds may be used for sports facilities.
No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative sentiment from hearings or floor action. From the bill’s structure, the proposal appears to be framed as a revenue-raising and targeted investment measure, with likely support from stakeholders favoring school athletics and sports venue development. At the same time, the bill’s redirection of sports gaming revenue away from the education fund may generate skepticism or opposition from those concerned about education funding priorities or public subsidies for sports facilities.
The main points of contention are likely to be the increase in the sports gaming tax rate, the diversion of revenue from education to sports venues and athletics, and the use of public money for professional sports facilities. Potential critics may argue that the bill shifts too much revenue away from K-12 education and toward venue subsidies, while supporters may argue that the new funding streams benefit students, local economies, and publicly owned facilities. The commission’s authority to approve projects and the criteria for selecting facilities could also be debated, especially regarding which teams and venues qualify for support.