During a recent panel discussion at the ICE convention in Barcelona, James Siva, chairman of the California Nations Indian Gaming Association (CNIGA), emphasized that California tribes will not pursue sports betting legalization in 2026. He conveyed that tribes have made considerable progress and need to be mindful not to rush into the intricate issues tied to sports betting and iGaming.
Siva was joined by Catalina Chacon, a councilmember of the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians, and Johnny Hernandez, vice chairman of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians. Their session was the final one in a series organized by the Indian Gaming Association (IGA), which also included discussions on collaborating with Indian Country, the evolution of San Manuel’s gaming initiatives, and the potential for growth in tribal sports betting.
Despite facing pressure from an increase in sweepstakes gambling, the tribes unanimously announced their decision not to advance another ballot initiative following their costly campaign against Proposition 27 in 2022, which aimed to legalize commercial sports betting. “It’s not going to happen in 2026,” Chacon stated. “The data is telling us that the time is not right. Definitely not 2026, we’re looking more like 2028, but it has to include all tribal communities in California.”
Hernandez added that inclusivity is crucial: “It has to include all tribes, including non-gaming tribes. I agree with Catalina that all tribes have to be in agreement. Gaming must go through the tribes.”
Achieving consensus among California's more than 100 tribes is a formidable challenge, given the varying economic statuses—from affluent, well-known tribes to those in rural areas struggling for basic services. The Pechanga and San Manuel tribes were principal players in opposing Proposition 27, which was financed by seven commercial sports betting operators seeking to permit digital sports betting across California.
Tribal leaders assert that any future gaming expansion must originate from Indian Country. They maintain exclusivity for Class III gaming and affirm their patience in deciding the path forward. “We have come too far to rush into this to potentially damage the foundation that we have built,” Siva noted. “For 2026 we’re being very patient. The outlook is looking toward the future.”
A key takeaway from the session was a budding consensus among tribes, with Chacon emphasizing the concept of “ownership” regarding legalization. This marks a shift from previous discussions that focused on simply achieving a “consensus.”
California tribes currently operate a Revenue Sharing Trust Fund (RSTF), contributing $1.1 million per year to support non-gaming tribes. As discussions about future sports betting—potentially including online gambling—develop, the RSTF's funding, established in 1999, is likely to be reevaluated in light of inflation and the current economic landscape.
In the past, tribes sought to legalize only in-person gambling, while commercial operators pushed for digital options. During the panel, no definitive direction was provided regarding future initiatives possibly incorporating an online element.
The growth of unregulated sweepstakes gambling is a significant concern for the tribes. Moderator Jason Giles, IGA executive director, raised the issue of whether sweepstakes ads might be pressuring tribes toward legalization. Chacon pointed out the misleading nature of sweepstakes operations, claiming, “They are getting away with it by saying that it’s a non-play, that there is no money. But if you peel back, you see that there is. It’s not OK. It’s illegal in California. Sweepstakes casinos are just not what they say they are.”
Victorio Rocha, chairman of the IGA conference, expressed his alarm at the rise of sweepstakes gambling and conducted a series of webinars on the topic last fall. The emergence of these unregulated operations appears to have unified the legal gaming sector, providing a shared concern between tribes and commercial operators, who have historically been at odds.
“It is a violation of both our exclusivity and infringing on our sovereignty,” said Hernandez, referring to the impact of sweepstakes on tribal interests.
