While states interested in legalized sports betting have typically been asking, “How soon?,” many Native American tribes have been considering a different question: “Should we?”
The nationwide push for expansion of regulated sports betting and online gaming raises unique issues for the 242 tribes and the 494 gaming operations they operate across the country, panelists at a Global Gaming Expo discussion said Monday.
They include:
- Could potential federal involvement in the monitoring of sports betting infringe on tribes’ sovereign authority?
- Could tribes be risking their exclusive rights to certain types of gambling in a jurisdiction?
- Can tribes afford not to be involved in what many experts see as the key to future growth in the gaming industry?
- How can tribes guarantee that the advent of sports betting and online gaming does not imperil casinos that provide money for health, education, and other community programs?
“We always need to protect our interests and make sure that … what is being offered to us is really going to be the best thing in the long run,” said panel moderator Valerie Spicer, executive director of the Arizona Indian Gaming Association.
Spicer led a discussion on “Sports Betting: The Path Forward for Indian Country,” part of the gaming industry’s first sports-betting symposium at this year’s G2E trade show. On the panel were Debbie Thundercloud, chief of staff for the National Indian Gaming Association; Aurene Martin, president of Spirit Rock Consulting, the country’s largest Native American-owned government affairs firm; Stephen M. Hart, a partner with Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie law firm and former director of the Arizona Department of Gaming; and Steve Bodmer, general counsel for the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians.
Tribal casinos posted $32.4 billion in gaming revenue in fiscal 2017; for comparison, the 460 commercial casinos in 24 states had $40.28 billion in 2017, according to the American Gaming Association.
Hart said the “big complicator” with sports betting is the potential impact on compacts with states that guarantee the tribes exclusive rights to operating Class III gaming in an area.
While exclusivity is important to all tribes, it could prove difficult to enforce in the world of sports betting. Early projections about the amount of money legal sports betting could generate put “stars in the eyes” of state officials in charge of gaming compacts, he said. And with Pennsylvania approving a 36 percent tax rate on sports wagering revenue at commercial casinos, states with tribal casinos could look for something comparable, limiting potential profit.
“I think there is a good future for Indian tribes in sports betting, but it’s going to have to begin with hard and earnest negotiations with state government,” he said.
Thundercloud noted that some members of Congress have spoken about want a federal framework for sports betting.
“If there’s a federal level of regulation that can come into picture, how do you as tribal leaders feel about relegating some of your sovereign authority to a federal framework?” she asked.
NIGA’s tribal leader session, scheduled for Dec. 4 in Washington, D.C., will address that question and the framework of exclusivity in general.
Bodmer said the prospect of using outside resources to set up or run sports-betting operations raises other questions: “How are we funding health care, how are we supporting health programs and youth programs within the community? That’s a critical aspect (of the issue) from the tribal side.”
Bodmer also warned tribal leaders to think long-term in any discussions of gaming expansion in the name of adding online or sports betting, citing a three-pronged California proposal that he labeled a “tribal sandwich.” One element of the proposal would allow tribal casinos to offer craps and roulette; another would bar gaming compacts with tribes that do not have land in California or are not recognized by the federal government.
The third would allow card rooms to begin offering such house-banked games as blackjack, which are currently restricted to tribal casinos.
“It’s creative, what they’ve done here,” he said. If the proposal advances, gaming activities might also shift between operators, such as from a tribal casino to a card room, he added. But the effort could backfire.
“I personally believe they poked the bear,” Bodmer said. “It’s consolidating tribal thought. Everybody in this room understands what we have always been good at: Fighting that common enemy.”
Allowing sports betting in California would require an amendment to the state constitution, with no guarantee that only tribes would be allowed to offer it. Bodmer also said tribes gaming compacts would have to be renegotiated.
“Is this amazing value – as you’ve heard (sports betting) described – worth it, going forward?” he asked. “And is there no choice but to go forward, given public opinion?
“There’s a lot to be discussed and debated.”
