Five years after the repeal of PASPA the sports betting industry made great strides in spreading across the US. The sports betting industry is in a deadlock with the other states. There are currently 38 states and DC that have legalized sports gambling.
In 2023, it has been difficult to pass sports betting legislation in states like Texas Georgia and Missouri despite the vocal support.
Jessica Feil Vice President of Regulatory and Compliance at OpenBet stated that although the industry has reached a twilight period in terms of legalization, the politicians will have other priorities during this legislative session.
Feil says that to convince lawmakers to give sports betting a higher priority, the industry must have a coherent message.
She explained, speaking on a panel entitled “Market Entry – A Fundamental Reset in Strategy” at SBC Summit North America 2018: “These lawmakers have so many competing priority when they look at a sports gambling bill or other gaming legislation; they also have to worry about health care. You know, oil and gasoline, banking, all these other priorities. Legislators do not have the expertise in our industry, so we must constantly educate them.
“We all work together in some degree to legalize sports gambling, because we are interested in a legal, safe market and we want business opportunities that will benefit consumers. It is good for the state’s revenue. “We have 12 priorities, but we only plan to accomplish six of them this year,” states will say.
Two competing measures made it to the ballot box in California, a prime example of how the industry strugglesd in important states. The industry was fragmented when it should have worked together to achieve their goal.
The industry’s relationship with tribes, or the lack thereof, hampered the opportunities in California in last year. A group of industry experts met to discuss the best way to overcome these obstacles in the future.
Feil was joined by Stacey Stern (VP Government Affairs, Underdog Sports), Chris Adams (Founder and CEO, SharpRank), and Todd Nelson (Director of Technical Compliance, BetMGM) on the panel.
Stern believes that a constructive dialogue with the tribes is essential to avoid a repeat of the 2022 elections, as over $600m were wasted on the Prop 26 and Prop 27 campaign.
Stern explained: “Last election, it was ugly and intense. It is important to find a solution, whether that’s working with tribes, or talking to legislators who have a relationship with the tribes.
“I think that the tribes were thinking ‘wait, as stakeholders we should be able to decide’ and they are right. You have to go through the tribes, and all of the factions that are there make it difficult.
Adams joined the debate, and discussed the state of Texas where anti-sports gambling Lt Governor Dan Patrick failed to pass sports betting legislation.
He used psychological theory to explain how and why legislators in Texas tend to be reluctant to vote for legislation that may not pass.
Adams responded to a vote where 97 of 100 votes on a Texan initiative were won, by explaining: “What we are looking at is the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Two participants may have to make decisions with the other not knowing. The general theory is the tit-for -tat method.
“I copy what my partner is doing, and that usually leads to the best result of where we are going.” What I hear is that you can solve a prisoner dilemma by letting them communicate. It’s important that Texas and California have a united voice that says, “We are all behind this set of guidelines.”
Nelson drew on his experience as a regulator with the Massachusetts Gaming Commission in order to explain to BetMGM how they communicate with legislators and state regulators to navigate technical compliance.
He said that what may work in one state might not necessarily be the best for another, but dialogue among the entire industry can benefit it from a perspective of compliance and new markets in the licensing process.
Nelson said to the panel: “Let’s discuss this because it is possible that we may have a solution or another state which worked very well, but in another case it worked badly.” “For instance, in Ohio there was a requirement that was unique. It had to do authentication of a particular process.
“We booked a meeting at the Ohio Casino Control Commission. They took our meeting. We went to explain exactly what our solution is. Our solution was not taken seriously. They were able to inform us of what exactly they needed, so we didn’t have to search for what was required.
