Chavdar Vasilev is a journalist covering the casino and sports betting market sectors for CasinoBeats. He joined CasinoBeats in May 2025 and reports on industry-shaping stories across the US and beyond, including legislative debates, market...
Read Full BioThe Social Gaming Leadership Alliance (SGLA) has shifted its focus to Florida, pushing for the legalization of sweepstakes casinos, citing a $70 million economic impact, according to a new economic-impact report from Eilers & Krejcik Gaming (EKG).
However, the push runs into multiple challenges. They include the state’s constitutional prohibition on casino-style gaming, the Seminole Tribe’s exclusivity under the 2021 compact, and a pending bill that aims to outlaw all forms of online gaming except those operated by the Seminole Tribe and daily fantasy sports.
The report, released in November and prepared for SGLA, argues that sweepstakes casinos, or SGLA’s new term, Social Plus games, are a revenue opportunity for Florida. According to EKG, sweepstakes operators are expected to generate $1.04 billion in Florida player purchases in 2025, accounting for approximately 8.5% of nationwide revenue.
The EKG report states that the industry already channels significant spending into U.S. businesses. It cites an estimated $1.468 billion in annual supplier spending across marketing, payment processing, and cloud hosting. Sweepstakes casinos also support 2,762 jobs nationwide.
A Revenue Pitch Designed for Lawmakers
SGLA’s core argument is that Florida could regulate an unregulated industry. The report claims the state could collect more than $70 million annually through a combination of operator license fees and a 6% tax on player purchases.
The key selling points:
- A proposed annual license fee of $270,000 per brand. That could generate $8–14 million
- A 6% tax on Florida consumer spending, worth roughly $62.7 million per year
EKG argues these numbers could grow as the industry expands. The report also suggests that Florida could enhance consumer safeguards by implementing licensing. That includes mandating clearer disclosures, auditing prize redemptions, and enforcing dispute-resolution rules that currently do not exist.
While the EKG analysis is economical, it frames sweepstakes casinos as a mature digital-commerce sector rather than a gambling model. In EKG’s view, regulation allows the state to turn what it presents as “leakage” into tax income.
Legal Reality Says the Opposite
Despite the scale of the numbers, Florida’s legal structure firmly challenges SGLA’s proposal.
Florida voters approved Amendment 3 in 2018, placing statewide casino expansion under constitutional control. Any casino-style gambling expansion must be “approved by voters.” That’s a threshold that sweepstakes-casino legalization would trigger.
Even before Amendment 3, Florida targeted “casino-style sweepstakes promotions” through statutory bans on perpetual sweepstakes.
Gaming attorney Daniel Wallach highlighted this in an April analysis for Forbes. He explained that Florida law already treats sweepstakes-casino models as prohibited gambling under existing statutory and constitutional language.
That legal framework hasn’t changed. If anything, lawmakers have signaled interest in tightening—not loosening—sweepstakes loopholes in statute.
The Seminole Compact: Biggest Barrier
Even if lawmakers want to pursue SGLA’s proposal, the 2021 Seminole Compact blocks it.
The compact grants the Seminole Tribe exclusive rights over casino gaming and online sports betting in the state, a framework upheld by federal and state courts. Any form of statewide online casino-style play, including sweepstakes casinos that allow players to redeem prizes for cash, would likely be interpreted as a breach of that exclusivity.
Such a breach could trigger:
- Suspension of revenue-sharing payments
- A lawsuit by the Tribe for violating compact terms
As the compact guarantees billions for the state (a minimum of $2.5 billion over the first five years), no lawmaker is likely to jeopardize a multibillion-dollar revenue source by legalizing an industry that currently contributes nothing to the state.
The potential of $70 million annually from sweepstakes casinos is a tiny fraction of what the Seminole Compact brings.
Legislation Moving Toward Prohibition, Not Regulation
The SGLA push comes amid a recently filed bill for the 2026 session, which seeks to ban all non-Seminole online and retail gaming, except for daily fantasy sports.
The measure, which initially targeted illegal land-based gaming parlors, aims to eliminate loophole-based gaming models, including sweepstakes casinos.
The Florida Gaming Control Commission and local law enforcement have also intensified their efforts. Law enforcement has conducted seizures of illegal gaming devices and shut down multiple sweepstakes-based parlors that operate as illicit casinos.
Against this backdrop, SGLA’s legalization effort is swimming against the current.
Conflict-of-Interest Questions Around EKG’s Role
While EKG frames its report as independent economic research, the firm’s investment arm, EKG Ventures, has investments in the sweepstakes casino sector.
EKG Ventures publicly lists Fliff and JefeBet as portfolio companies. Fliff is a social sportsbook, and JefeBet is a sweepstakes casino; both operate through a dual-currency model, which is facing increased scrutiny, including legislative bans, regulator enforcement actions, and consumer lawsuits.
These investments provide EKG Ventures with direct financial exposure to the sweepstakes-gaming vertical that SGLA is advocating for legalization in Florida. The economic report does not disclose these holdings.
A Difficult Sell in Florida
The SGLA-commissioned report portrays sweepstakes casinos as a promising revenue source for the state of Florida. However, the state’s legal framework, constitutional restrictions, and compact obligations create a barrier that a revenue projection alone cannot overcome.
Unless voters amend the constitution, the Seminole Tribe renegotiates its compact, and lawmakers prioritize a new gaming vertical over established revenue channels, the path SGLA is promoting remains legally improbable.
Furthermore, based on previous efforts by SGLA to oppose potential bans, lawmakers in multiple states have shown little interest in siding with the trade group.
