Could a Kentucky charity run a raffle whose winner depended on a football game or horse race?

Plain-English summary

Kentucky's Attorney General concluded in 1995 that a charity could not treat a contest keyed to a football score, winning team, or other live sports result as an authorized raffle. The statutory raffle definition required a random drawing, and the opinion said a prediction based winner did not give each ticket an equal chance in that drawing. The charitable gaming law also excluded wagering on live sporting events and simulcast horse races from authorized special limited charitable games.

The AG reached a separate but related answer for recordings of earlier horse races. Even though the race was no longer live, selecting the winner by a bet on a horse did not meet the raffle rules. Straight or parimutuel wagering on such recordings at a charitable gaming facility also conflicted with Kentucky's racing laws unless the facility was licensed under the racing chapter.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

Charities running sports based raffles

The request described games where participants predicted a point spread, final score, winning team, or tournament winner. The AG said those contests did not fit KRS 238.505(8)'s raffle definition because the prize depended on a sports outcome instead of a random drawing. KRS 238.545(3) also required each ticket to represent a separate and equal chance to win.

Organizers using horse race recordings

The AG did not treat a videotape of a past race as a live sporting event. It still rejected using the race result to pick a raffle winner: each ticket would not have an equal chance by random drawing, and someone could already know the recorded result. The opinion applied that reasoning to both a raffle linked to a recorded race and straight wagering offered during a casino night.

Charitable facilities offering wagering

The opinion said straight or parimutuel wagering on recorded races at a charitable gaming facility ran into KRS 230.361's limits. Under the statute as the AG described it, parimutuel wagering required an authorized race meeting operator and licensed premises. The AG left an exception for a facility also licensed under KRS Chapter 230.

Common questions

Could a Kentucky charity award a raffle prize based on a football score in 1995?

No. The AG said the winner had to be selected by random drawing under the raffle definition. Predicting the score or winner of a live game also fell within the law's exclusion of wagering on live sporting events.

Did calling a sports prediction contest a raffle make it legal charitable gaming?

No. The AG looked at how the winner was chosen. A predicted sports outcome was different from the random drawing and equal chance required by KRS 238.505(8) and KRS 238.545(3).

Did using a recording of an earlier horse race avoid the raffle restriction?

No. The AG said the recorded race was not live, but the winning ticket still depended on a horse selection rather than a random drawing. Prior knowledge of the race result could also defeat equal chances.

Could a charity take straight or parimutuel bets on recorded races at a casino night?

The AG said such wagering at a charitable gaming facility would contravene Kentucky's parimutuel rules unless the facility was also licensed under KRS Chapter 230.

Background and statutory framework

KRS 238.505(8) defined a raffle by a purchased ticket and random drawing; KRS 238.545(3) required separate tickets with equal chances. KRS 238.505(18) excluded wagering on live sports and simulcast horse races from special limited charitable games. KRS 230.361 governed parimutuel wagering at licensed race premises. The opinion applied these provisions to arrangements described by the Charitable Gaming Advisory Commission, not to a named operator. Its syllabus prints "KRS 237.505(18)," while its statutes list and analysis repeatedly cite KRS 238.505(18); the original text below retains the printed discrepancy.

Citations and references

• KRS 238.505(8): raffle definition requiring a random drawing.
• KRS 238.545(3): separate tickets and equal chances to win.
• KRS 238.505(18): exclusion of live sports wagering and simulcast horse races.
• KRS 230.361: limits on parimutuel wagering at licensed premises.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/Opinions/Opinions/OAG95-023.htm

Original opinion text

OAG 95-23

June 7, 1995

Subject: Charitable Gaming - Wagering on Live Sporting Events - Videotapes of Prior Horse Races - Parimutuel Wagering

Written By: James M. Ringo

Requested By: Christopher W. Johnson

Syllabus: Raffles where the winner is determined by the outcome of a live sporting event rather than determined by a random drawing would not fall within the type of raffle authorized by the Charitable Gaming Act. KRS 237.505(18) specifically excludes "simulcast broadcasts of horse races" as well as wagering on live sporting events. Games of chance using videotapes of past horse races violate raffle requirements because each participant would not have equal chance of winning by random drawing. Straight or parimutuel wagering at charitable gaming facilities prohibited by KRS 230.361 et seq.

OAGs cited: OAG 82-4

Statutes construed: KRS 230.361; KRS 238.500; KRS 238.505(8); KRS 238.505(18); KRS 238.545(3)

OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

This is in response to a request from the Charitable Gaming Advisory Commission, for an opinion as to the effect of KRS 238.505(18), which excludes as charitable gaming "wagering on live sporting events," a common practice involving raffles occurring in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

The request describes various raffles involved as follows:

Apparently, there are charitable organizations throughout the State which sponsor raffles or drawings linked to, tied into or otherwise dependent on the outcome of football and other such live sporting events. In some variations of the raffle, the point-spread is predicted by the players. In other variations, the game scores are predicted. Some versions of the raffle require only that the participant predict the winner. There are many, many permutations on this gaming concept, including the creation of "dream teams" (tied into a player's season performance in actual live games) or predictions of ultimate series or tournament winners. The live sporting events on which scores or results are predicted are not always professional, as this raffle scheme extends in many regions of the State to local non-professional (e.g. high school) events.

In a subsequent letter to this office, the Commission asked that we consider another common practice along with the ones set forth in the original letter. It describes this additional practice as follows:

There are charitable organizations which conduct games of chance (whether tied into a raffle or via straight wagering in the context of a "casino night") which are linked to, tied into or otherwise dependent on live horse races. Generally, videotapes of live horse races (run on a prior date) are used. We would direct your attention to KRS 238.505(18) wherein "wagering on live sporting events" is excluded from the games authorized under Kentucky's new charitable gaming laws. In responding to this inquiry, we would ask that you give consideration to whether such activities constitute parimutuel wagering governed by the state's racing authorities.

To begin, KRS 238.500, in pertinent part, provides:

The purpose of this chapter is to comply with constitutional requirements by establishing an effective and efficient mechanism for regulating charitable gaming which includes defining the scope of charitable gaming activities. . . ."

(Emphasis added.)

The language of these charitable gaming statutes is clear on its face and we need not resort to the rules of statutory construction in interpreting them. Regional Jail Authority v. Tackett, Ky., 770 S.W.2d 225, 229 (1989).

KRS 238.505(8) defines "raffle" as follows:

"Raffle" means a game of chance in which a participant is required to purchase a ticket for a chance to win a prize, with the winner to be determined by a random drawing . . . .

Those variations of the raffle set out in the request letter where the winner is to be determined by the outcome of the football game or other such live sporting events rather than determined by a random drawing would not fall within the type of raffle authorized by the Charitable Gaming Act. Such would be the case in those variations where the winner is determined by the raffle player that correctly predicts the point spread, the game score, or the winning team or participant, or predicts the ultimate winning team or player in a series or tournament rather than by a random drawing. KRS 238.545(3) requires that tickets for a raffle shall be sold separately and each ticket shall constitute a separate and equal chance to win. Such would not be the case where the winner is determined by the participant's prediction as opposed to a random drawing. Under this circumstance, each ticket would not have an equal chance of winning by a random drawing as required by KRS 238.545(3).

Moreover, to the extent the raffles involve predicting the outcome or winners of "live sporting events," the raffles would be in violation of the charitable gaming laws as such wagering is clearly excluded from the authorized games under KRS 238.505(18). That section provides:

"Special limited charitable game" means roulette, blackjack, poker, money wheel, baccarat, pusher-type games, any dice game where the player competes against the house, and any other game of chance as identified, defined, and approved by administrative regulation of the division, but shall not include slot machines, electronic video gaming devices, wagering on live sporting events, or simulcast broadcasts of horse races.

Of like effect would be games of chance conducted by charitable organizations which are linked to, tied into, or otherwise dependent on live horse races. KRS 238.505(18) specifically excludes "simulcast broadcasts of horse races" as well as wagering on live sporting events.

Although games of chance using videotapes of past horse races (run on days prior to the date of the raffle) or the straight wagering on these videotaped races at a "casino night" would not be "live," they would still violate the raffle requirements of KRS 238.505(8) and 238.545(3). Each ticket would not have an equal chance of winning by random drawing. In the videotaped horse race, as well as a live one, the winner is determined by the wager on a particular horse rather than determined by a random drawing. Moreover, the equal chance requirement would be frustrated if a participant had prior knowledge of the videotaped race's outcome.

In addition, straight wagering or parimutuel wagering at charitable gaming facilities on videotapes of live horse races run on a prior date would be in violation of the parimutuel wagering statutes, KRS 230.361 et seq. These statutes provide that parimutuel wagering shall be conducted only by a person authorized under KRS Chapter 230 to conduct a race meeting and only upon a licensed premises. KRS 230.361. See also OAG 82-4. Accordingly, such wagering at a charitable gaming facility would be in contravention of the parimutuel laws unless the facility was also licensed under KRS Chapter 230.

CHRIS GORMAN

ATTORNEY GENERAL

James M. Ringo

Assistant Attorney General