• Home
• MGM Springfield Fined $25,000 Over Prohibited College Baseball Market

MGM Springfield Fined $25,000 Over Prohibited College Baseball Market

MGM Springfield Fined $25,000 Over Banned College Baseball Market – Massachusetts Regulators Cite Ongoing Compliance Issues

Key Takeaways

• MGM Springfield was fined $25,000 after a prohibited college baseball market briefly appeared at its sportsbook.
• The market involved Northeastern vs. Campbell University and was available for about two hours.
• No wagers were accepted on the game.
• Massachusetts law prohibits betting on in-state college teams except during national tournaments.
• MGM Springfield has previously paid fines for similar college sports betting violations.

Massachusetts Gaming Commission Approves $25,000 Penalty

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission approved a $25,000 fine against MGM Springfield after regulators determined that a banned college baseball market had been listed at the casino’s sportsbook. The decision was made at a commission meeting earlier in July.

According to enforcement counsel Diandra Franks, MGM Springfield cooperated with investigators and agreed with the recommended penalty. Although the market was available to customers for approximately two hours, the casino did not accept any bets on the game.

The incident adds to a series of enforcement actions in Massachusetts related to wagering on college teams based in the state.

Prohibited Market Involved Northeastern Baseball

The market in question concerned a baseball game between Northeastern University and Campbell University, played on April 5, 2025, in North Carolina. Northeastern won the game 8 to 1 behind starting pitcher Aiven Cabral, a Lynn native and Atlanta Braves draft pick.

A gaming agent identified the listing after it had been live for about two hours. Even though no wagers were placed, regulators treated the listing as a breach of state rules.

Under Massachusetts law, betting on college teams located in the state is prohibited, unless those teams compete in national tournaments. The restriction applies regardless of where the game is played. Because Northeastern is a Massachusetts-based institution, the market should not have been offered.

For you as a user evaluating sportsbooks, this distinction is important. A game may appear within broader national betting menus, but state-specific rules can still prohibit wagering on certain teams. Operators are responsible for ensuring that restricted markets are not available to customers in Massachusetts.

Repeated Compliance Issues With College Betting Markets

The latest fine is not the first time MGM Springfield has faced regulatory action over college sports markets.

In 2024, the casino paid $47,500 after accepting bets on 2023 college basketball games involving Northeastern and the University of Massachusetts Amherst. In that case, wagers were placed in violation of the state’s prohibition on betting on in-state college teams.

One year earlier, regulators fined MGM Springfield $20,000 after wagers were offered on two Harvard men’s basketball games. Regulators said at the time that BetMGM, the casino’s vendor, had incorrectly listed Harvard as being located in Connecticut, which led to the markets being made available.

These cases show that the regulatory focus in Massachusetts extends beyond whether bets were placed. The mere offering of a prohibited market can result in enforcement action, even if no customer ultimately places a wager.

Similar Enforcement Action Against Another Operator

MGM Springfield is not the only operator to face penalties under Massachusetts’ college betting restrictions.

In November, regulators fined Fanatics $20,000 after the sportsbook accepted 83 bets worth $3,325 on a 2024 Boston College football game against Michigan State. According to regulators, an employee had wrongly disabled limits on the game, allowing wagers that should not have been permitted under state law.

During the Fanatics enforcement meeting, Commissioner Eileen O’Brien expressed dissatisfaction with the level of fines imposed for repeated violations. She stated that incremental increases in penalties may not provide sufficient deterrence for operators. O’Brien also noted that placing responsibility solely on employees who make mistakes shifts risk away from the company itself.

Her comments came in the context of multiple enforcement actions involving college sports betting markets over a relatively short period.

Why College Betting Rules Create Operational Challenges

Massachusetts’ prohibition on wagering on in-state college teams, except in national tournaments, has created recurring compliance challenges for sportsbooks and their partners. Many college events are included in broader national betting menus that cover teams from across the United States.

As a result, operators must ensure that automated systems, geolocation tools, and internal controls correctly filter out restricted markets for Massachusetts customers. Errors in team classification or limit settings can lead to prohibited markets being displayed or wagers being accepted.

In the case of the Northeastern baseball game, regulators found that the market was visible for about two hours before being detected. Even without financial impact in terms of accepted bets, the listing itself constituted a breach under state law.

For users, these enforcement actions can affect the availability of certain markets and highlight differences in betting rules between jurisdictions.

Our Assessment

The $25,000 fine against MGM Springfield reflects Massachusetts’ continued enforcement of its ban on betting on in-state college teams outside national tournaments. Although no bets were accepted on the Northeastern baseball game, regulators treated the brief listing of the market as a violation. The case follows earlier penalties involving MGM Springfield and other operators, indicating sustained regulatory scrutiny of college sports betting compliance in the state.