North Carolina finds itself at a pivotal juncture. With the arrival of legal online sports wagering, the state has taken more than just a fiscal step forward—it’s begun reshaping the conversation around access and opportunity in the gambling sector. The recent wave of legislation has focused primarily on large-scale sportsbooks and tribal interests, yet beneath the surface lies a broader potential: a path that might finally allow independent operators to enter a space long closed to them.
As lawmakers revisit who gets to participate in the evolving gambling landscape, new questions are emerging about how alternative models abroad have handled inclusion and competition. This shift in perspective opens the door to exploring systems that operate outside traditional licensing boundaries. Some countries, such as the UK, have embraced tiered licensing to encourage diversity among operators, while others allow regional permits to support local platforms. In certain jurisdictions, regulatory frameworks are designed to accommodate smaller brands alongside major industry names.
A growing segment even includes models with broader accessibility, such as UK non-Gamstop casinos operating beyond conventional restrictions. Among the systems attracting attention, casinos not on Gamstop are often noted for their flexible account limits and wider game selections. These platforms typically allow faster registration processes and offer access to international software providers. Another point frequently raised is the variety of bonuses, which in many cases go beyond what’s available through domestically licensed sites. For some players, the appeal lies in the broader structural design rather than any single feature, reflecting how these casinos operate under different regulatory expectations.
This renewed focus on structural fairness has prompted comparisons with how other regions manage access and oversight. Broader participation models abroad highlight the impact that regulatory design can have on competition, growth, and innovation. As North Carolina weighs its next steps, these examples offer a reference point for what a more open and balanced framework might look like.
When North Carolina opened the door to online sports betting in March 2024, the response was immediate. By the first weeks of 2025, the volume of bets placed had already crossed $6.6 billion—an outcome few had predicted with such speed. The unexpected surge has reopened long-standing questions in Raleigh about whether the current rules truly support a competitive market or simply keep existing power structures in place. A proposal now drawing particular scrutiny would push the tax rate on sportsbook revenues from 18 to 36 percent. Supporters believe it could deliver substantial gains for public budgets, but others see a risk: that the increase may shut out smaller ventures before they’ve had any real chance to compete.
What comes next will depend heavily on how the next phase of reform is shaped. If designed with adaptability, the legislation could create space for local and mid-sized participants. But if the system continues to favour high-capital requirements and complex licensing routes, the dominance of national brands may only grow stronger. The state stands at a decision point: emulate inclusive models seen elsewhere, or continue reinforcing a structure that limits who gets to play.
The UK offers a useful contrast. While large firms dominate parts of the market, smaller, independent operators also thrive, thanks to a licensing system that lowers financial and procedural barriers. These leaner ventures succeed by staying flexible, offering quicker payouts, tailored features, and niche content. Their growth hasn’t depended on scale but on access.
That kind of access remains out of reach in North Carolina. It’s not just a matter of legality—structural demands tied to integration, promotion, and cost make it difficult for smaller players to enter. Even promising concepts often stall before launch.
Most reform proposals highlight taxes or licensing fees, but the deeper issue lies in market design. If North Carolina wants broader participation, the rules must reflect what smaller operators face. Beyond easing regulation, officials would need to ensure equal access to core systems—payments, platforms, and tools now out of reach for those without corporate backing.
Reform is often seen as a path toward economic systems that work more effectively when influence isn’t locked within a small circle. Restricting regulatory access to just a handful of players tends to slow progress and limits how the system responds to real-world change. By contrast, distributing authority and decision-making through broader channels encourages flexibility, practical solutions, and local engagement. Those rooted in their own communities typically spot shifts earlier and reinvest where they operate, shaping a market that grows stronger from within and adjusts more naturally over time.
Even so, an important question lingers: how can a system be structured to invite new participants without weakening safeguards or opening unintended gaps in oversight? Striking that balance is no simple task. In the UK, regulators apply firm expectations across the board, requiring even smaller operators to meet clear rules on advertising, financial protections, and operational clarity. What sets that system apart, however, is the proportionality of its rules. Expectations grow with market share, not against it. North Carolina lawmakers might consider a similar approach—one that offers room to grow without relaxing key guardrails.
In interviews with small business owners across the state, there’s a shared sense of possibility, but also skepticism. Many remember previous moments when the gambling policy changed, only to find themselves excluded from the benefits. The concern now is that reforms will again favor the same small group of insiders who already dominate the space. Without a deliberate policy that lowers the threshold for entry, any talk of expansion may amount to little more than window dressing.
Yet something does feel different this time. The numbers from sports betting have shifted the public dialogue. Opposition that once felt ideological now seems more practical: If gambling is here, how should it look? Who gets to participate? And how can the market serve both state needs and private ambition?
That’s the conversation taking shape in committee rooms and business forums across North Carolina. While no final decisions have been made, the shape of the debate has widened. Terms like “fair access” and “inclusive licensing” have entered official discussions. Stakeholders are beginning to speak in terms that go beyond revenue and enforcement. They’re asking how the system might evolve to allow more voices, more risk-takers, more ideas.
Whether that shift becomes law is another matter entirely. But for now, the possibility exists. With the right framework, North Carolina could create not just a gambling economy, but a marketplace where scale doesn’t equal access, and innovation isn’t restricted to the well-connected.
Founder Dinis Guarda
IntelligentHQ Your New Business Network.
IntelligentHQ is a Business network and an expert source for finance, capital markets and intelligence for thousands of global business professionals, startups, and companies.
We exist at the point of intersection between technology, social media, finance and innovation.
IntelligentHQ leverages innovation and scale of social digital technology, analytics, news, and distribution to create an unparalleled, full digital medium and social business networks spectrum.
IntelligentHQ is working hard, to become a trusted, and indispensable source of business news and analytics, within financial services and its associated supply chains and ecosystems
