Fan Duel is going to add a 50 cent surcharge on every bet in Illinois. lol

[Bluehorseshoe]

Offshore books should start getting billboards in the state.....

FanDuel is upping the ante in Illinois with a new 50-cent surcharge on all wagers, and DraftKings may be next.

Flutter-owned FanDuel is introducing the charge to mitigate the impact of new taxes that the state instituted with its new budget

, which disproportionately affect the two leading sportsbooks.

The new tax is applied to each wager that a sportsbook accepts — 25 cents per bet for the first 20 million wagers, 50 cents per wager after that.

“Should the state reverse its decision at any point in the future, FanDuel will immediately remove the $0.50 transaction fee,” Flutter said in a press release.

DraftKings may be following suit. In a statement issued on Tuesday, a company spokesperson said, “DraftKings anticipates taking action and expects to share more information soon.”

Combined, FanDuel and DraftKings account for about 75% of the Illinois sports betting market.

Citizens gaming analyst Jordan Bender estimates the new transaction fee will translate to $79 million in new 2026 revenue for DraftKings, or 5.4% of its projected EBITDA for that year, and $86 million for FanDuel, about 2% of EBITDA.

The Illinois tax comes on top of a progressive tax passed last year, which leaves the most successful sportsbooks paying taxes at a rate of 40%. Before the change, they were paying at 15%.

When that tax bill passed, DraftKings initially said it would pass along the costs to consumers. After massive backlash, it reversed course.

https://www .cnbc.com/2025/06/10/fanduel-draftkings-surcharge-illinois-taxes.html

[unde0087]

These books are absolute clowns. They want to justify trying to make players pay for the new cost.

How about cutting back the 4 thousand commercials these dipshits throw in everyone's faces everyday and eat the cost. I can't stand both of those books. Even if I was in a state that allowed me to deposit at either I still wouldn't give them a dime.

SBR should respond with D- for both books.

[ChuckyTheGoat]

Not surprised. Books have zero respect for the customer. Figure that they'll bet at any price.

I've seen that Blackjack tables are now mostly $15 minimum. House needs to make $$. They can't get by on small margins.

[unde0087]

They spent over a billion dollars on advertising last year. Fuk those hamburgers.

[Getch13]

[SBR Andy]

Full story from SBR here: https://www.sportsbookreview.com/new...-june-11-2025/

[pavyracer]

Reminds me of the fast food restaurants where they charge you 50c for extra ketchup or sauce. There is no respect for the customer. Corporate greed.

[tblues2005]

Except for the big two I haven't seen anything from other sportsbooks in the state. I go to Illinois all of the time from Missouri. I'm thinking some of them aren't going to charge anything and advertise in the state as an alternative for small players in particular. I am thinking Bet Rivers, EspnBet, Ceasars, Circa, MGM, & Bet365 all want more action. They could go on an advertisement no additional fees here. I can see that happening with their lower tax rate because they aren't as big in the state.

[d2bets]

Except for the big two I haven't seen anything from other sportsbooks in the state. I go to Illinois all of the time from Missouri. I'm thinking some of them aren't going to charge anything and advertise in the state as an alternative for small players in particular. I am thinking Bet Rivers, EspnBet, Ceasars, Circa, MGM, & Bet365 all want more action. They could go on an advertisement no additional fees here. I can see that happening with their lower tax rate because they aren't as big in the state.

They'll have to do a minimum bet or something. As of now, you could bet 10 cents on something. But after the tax, that 10 cent wager would cost the book 50 cents (plus whatever you win). They either have to add the transaction fee or make a minimum wager amount like 5 bucks or something. The days of the 25 cent lottery tickets are dead.

[TommieGunshot]

I'll be the one person to agree with what is going on in Illinois. The primary purpose for most of these states legalizing sports betting was to raise revenue. But now the vast majority of the sportsbooks don't really want to take bets by limiting customers to zero or close to zero. When there is no bet there can be no revenue for the state. So the taxes should be raised. If the corporation wants to pass the tax on to the customer, that's their prerogative, but they could have easily made sure this mess never happened.

[Optional]

I'll be the one person to agree with what is going on in Illinois. The primary purpose for most of these states legalizing sports betting was to raise revenue. But now the vast majority of the sportsbooks don't really want to take bets by limiting customers to zero or close to zero. When there is no bet there can be no revenue for the state. So the taxes should be raised. If the corporation wants to pass the tax on to the customer, that's their prerogative, but they could have easily made sure this mess never happened.

Interesting perspective.

Fair way to look at it.

[pavyracer]

I'll be the one person to agree with what is going on in Illinois. The primary purpose for most of these states legalizing sports betting was to raise revenue. But now the vast majority of the sportsbooks don't really want to take bets by limiting customers to zero or close to zero. When there is no bet there can be no revenue for the state. So the taxes should be raised. If the corporation wants to pass the tax on to the customer, that's their prerogative, but they could have easily made sure this mess never happened.

Finally, something that makes sense. Because when you limit action then you reduce revenue and reduced revenue means less taxes to state.

[SBR Andy]

DraftKings follows suit - https://www.sportsbookreview.com/new...-june-13-2025/

[d2bets]

I'll be the one person to agree with what is going on in Illinois. The primary purpose for most of these states legalizing sports betting was to raise revenue. But now the vast majority of the sportsbooks don't really want to take bets by limiting customers to zero or close to zero. When there is no bet there can be no revenue for the state. So the taxes should be raised. If the corporation wants to pass the tax on to the customer, that's their prerogative, but they could have easily made sure this mess never happened.

They should have passed legislation requiring transparent and uniform betting limits, without discrimination. Now that would be interesting.

[str]

Hook them , let it run a bit, and then SET the hook.

That's fishing right?

A young person that likes to gamble better have themselves mentally together or they will get buried.

This was not an afterthought. It was a strategy.

So if you bet multiple wagers on the same ticket, is it 50 cents total or per wager?

[dollarbill]

You are kidding me.... The new tax is applied to each wager that a sportsbook accepts — 25 cents per bet for the first 20 million wagers, 50 cents per wager after that. 25 cents X's 1 million
BONUS
won't have to worry about 50 cent till you wager $250,000

[ChuckyTheGoat]

Very bad. Juice is supposed to be -110/-110. Not supposed to add an extra tax.

[unde0087]

Very bad. Juice is supposed to be -110/-110. Not supposed to add an extra tax.

Correct, absolutely ZERO reason to play at either book.