Online Sports Betting Statistics Updated November 2026

Human Written & Fact Checked · Updated

100 New Jersey Sports Betting Statistics for 2026

You cannot understand New Jersey's sports-betting market from turnover alone. Annual regulator accounts describe licensed activity, player-level research explains historical behavior, and polling measures public attitudes.

This page keeps those evidence types separate. The latest complete-year accounting below covers 2025, while the Rutgers observations explicitly cover 2021 and the advertising poll covers February 2025. Publication dates in citations should never be mistaken for the year the activity occurred.

Headline figures

How large is New Jersey's regulated sports-betting market?

Separate wagering turnover, operator revenue and tax receipts before comparing market size. A large handle can coexist with a much smaller amount retained by operators.

How do online and lounge revenues compare?

The annual report separates online sportsbooks from physical lounges and reports their year-over-year changes. These observations cover calendar 2025, not a partial-year forecast. The online revenue headline is reserved for the takeaways. Revenue is the regulatory gross-revenue measure, not company profit after marketing, staffing and other costs. The contrast between channel trends is useful, but it does not prove that a particular customer moved from a lounge to an app. A channel migration claim would require linked customer evidence. Annual comparisons also smooth over the sporting calendar and outcomes that can make individual months unusually strong or weak.

What does the handle measure include?

Handle counts stakes accepted, including money customers may wager again after receiving payouts. The statewide table includes bets on future events, so its annual total differs from the completed-events table used later on this page. That is a scope difference, not an arithmetic error to repair by forcing the totals to match. Online handle appears in the takeaways, while the lounge and combined measures are below. These observations cover calendar 2025. They do not estimate unique deposits, the number of bettors or household losses. For comparisons with other states, confirm whether the other source includes future events and uses the same treatment of adjustments.

Which tax streams are reported separately?

The annual schedule distinguishes online, lounge and additional sports-wagering taxes. Casino and racetrack labels identify the regulatory reporting stream. They do not mean that every underlying wager was placed physically at those venues. The total tax observation appears above; the component lines below describe calendar 2025 collections in the release. Do not apply a rate shown in a December table to the entire year without checking effective dates. Receipts also should not be described as the industry's net fiscal benefit, which would require a broader analysis of public costs and displaced activity.

Which online sportsbook brands generated revenue?

Keep brand and licence context attached to revenue. A shared consumer name can appear in more than one regulatory row.

How did the largest reported brand rows compare?

The regulator ranks online brand entries by annual gross revenue in its December 2025 release. FanDuel's figure is reserved for the takeaways; the next entries are listed below. These amounts are revenue, not stakes accepted, app downloads or unique customers. Caesars retains its licence partner in the label because a separate Caesars row appears under another partner. The historical theScore Bet row follows the source's naming and rebranding note, instead of assuming a newly named brand operated for the entire reporting year under that name. A commercial market-share analysis should keep these reporting identities consistent across periods.

What do the other selected brand rows show?

These entries extend the comparison beyond leading brands. All figures use the same calendar-year online revenue column, making them directly comparable on that measure. This selection does not claim to be a complete list of every active or discontinued brand in the original report. Smaller revenue can reflect scale, customer mix, outcomes or reporting arrangements; the table alone cannot identify the cause. Preserve the Monmouth qualifier on the Caesars entry when joining these observations to another dataset. Removing that qualifier would make distinct reporting rows appear to be duplicate claims or invite an accidental double count.

Which sports and bet formats generated completed-event activity?

Completed-event stakes answer a different question from all stakes accepted. The parlay category also cuts across sports, so it should not be assigned wholesale to a single league.

What do American football, basketball and baseball show?

The completed-events table reports stakes and operator win for broad sports categories across online and retail channels in 2025. "Football" in this New Jersey table is American football; association football is not separately identified here. Basketball stakes appear in the takeaways, leaving its completed-event win below. These figures do not distinguish college from professional competition. They should not be interpreted as league-specific market sizes or online-only totals. Operator win is also not the same as profit after expenses. When comparing a sport across jurisdictions, first match settlement scope, channels and the way multi-sport bets are classified.

How are parlays and other sports represented?

Parlays are reported as a format category, while "Other" collects activity outside the named sports rows. Both use completed-event accounting for calendar 2025. The parlay win observation appears in the takeaways and is not repeated here. A parlay may contain selections linked to several sports, so adding it to one sport's stakes would create an unsupported allocation. Likewise, the residual category cannot be relabeled as soccer, tennis or any other individual sport. The original report notes that these statistical data are unaudited and subject to adjustment. Retaining the report version and observation date is therefore important when a later release revises historical values.

Who appeared in the historical player-level records?

Player-level research reveals participation that revenue totals cannot. The Rutgers report released in August 2026 analyzes 2021 activity even with its Calendar Year 2022 cover title.

How did new and returning bettors differ?

Rutgers separates new bettors from returning players who opened additional accounts and returning players using existing accounts. These categories refer to active bettors in the 2021 operator records, not all people who ever registered an account. The total active-player observation appears in the takeaways. Researchers linked records across reporting sites using a unique player identifier, which makes the player counts different from a simple count of accounts. The regulated-market population can include people resident outside New Jersey, so these figures are not estimates of participation among New Jersey residents alone. They provide a historical account of market engagement instead of a current customer forecast.

What age and gender profile did the records contain?

The demographic estimates describe active 2021 bettors with the relevant field recorded. The largest age-band observation appears in the takeaways. Missing gender records and the source's binary gender options limit interpretation; the reported gender shares do not describe everyone's gender identity. Age and gender also have different valid-record bases. These are customer-composition measures, not the percentage of every age group in the general population that gambled. A representative population survey would be needed for that separate question.

How did historical betting activity, funding and tools differ?

Means alone conceal large differences between occasional and intensive activity. Payment categories and account-control use also need their own denominators.

How did mean and median wagering activity compare?

These 2021 statistics summarize individual bettors, with means and medians describing different points in the distribution. The "individual average wager" is a bettor-level summary, so its mean differs from dividing total stakes by all bets. None of these measures is a loss estimate, and repeated staking of returned money can increase annual wagering turnover.

How were in-game bets and funding methods measured?

In-game observations describe bets placed during an event; the share of money wagered appears above. Funding categories describe bettors in the payment-method analysis and remain mutually classified as the report presents them. ePay identifies a service, not necessarily the underlying source of funds.

Which account-control features did users select?

The percentages below describe 2021 users of at least one responsible-gambling feature, not all sports bettors. Each listed category means that feature alone; combinations remain outside these selected observations. The overall usage rate appears in the takeaways. Low or high uptake cannot by itself establish effectiveness, and using a tool does not identify a clinical condition. The regulator's release preface explicitly warns that the historical tool-use findings do not fully reflect later practices. These figures belong in a historical behavioral analysis, with current availability and requirements checked separately before providing hands-on account guidance.

What did voters think about gambling advertising limits?

Ad-policy preferences are a separate question from betting participation. The poll asked about sports betting and other gambling advertising together.

How did responses vary by party?

FDU's February 2025 poll asked New Jersey registered voters whether they supported limits on where and when gambling ads could appear. Overall support is reserved for the takeaways. The question referenced children's exposure, which is part of the wording readers should retain when comparing polls. Party groups include the source's treatment of partisan leaners. These are historical opinion estimates, not a referendum result or proof that a particular restriction would change betting behavior.

How did responses vary by gender and racial group?

The named subgroup is the denominator for every estimate below. These results concern support or opposition to ad-placement limits, not whether respondents saw advertisements, placed bets or experienced gambling harm. Sampling uncertainty is larger for subgroups than for the full poll. Apparent differences should therefore be interpreted with the original methodology instead of ranked as precise population facts. The race and gender groupings follow FDU's published table and are not newly inferred categories.

How did responses vary by age?

The age comparisons use the same question and February 2025 fieldwork. They describe the percentage within each age band supporting or opposing limits on when and where gambling advertisements appear. They do not measure approval of sports betting itself. The youngest category follows the published "30 and under" label for the adult voter sample. Support and opposition are not exact complements because the questionnaire also allowed uncertainty and refusal. These historical attitudes are useful context for policy discussions, while a current estimate requires a new comparable survey.

Glossary

Methodology and sources

Every figure on this page comes from the organisation that produced it: regulators, statistics offices, public bodies, research institutes, and companies reporting their own data or surveys. Each one links to the original report or dataset and carries its release date. Survey results keep their population and fieldwork period, and financial figures keep the measure the producer used. Figures from different producers are not added together or ranked against each other. The page is reviewed monthly and updated when a producer releases newer data.