A panel of California tribal leaders Tuesday (21 January) told ICE participants that they won’t put legal sports betting on the 2026 ballot. Indian Country has reached some consensus, but polling indicates voters aren’t interested.
California Nations Indian Gaming Association (CNIGA) chairman James Siva said that tribes have “come too far and have too far to go to rush into this complex sports betting (issue) which is tied to igaming.” His remarks led a chorus during the “State of Gambling in California: Current Trends and Future Prospects” discussion at the ICE convention in Barcelona.
Siva was joined by Pechanga Band of Mission Indians councilmember Catalina Chacon and San Manuel Band of Mission Indians vice chairman Johnny Hernandez. The panel was the last of four put on by the Indian Gaming Association (IGA). A how-to guide for working with Indian Country, a history of how San Manuel grew gaming and a discussion about remaining growth opportunities for tribal sports betting rounded out the conversation.
But the news was the tribes’ announcement that despite feeling pressure from the rise of sweepstakes, they would not pursue another ballot initiative so soon after spending nearly hundreds of millions to defeat a commercial proposal in 2022.
“It’s not going to happen in 2026,” Chacon said. “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.”
Said Hernandez: “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.”
Consensus-building still a work in progress
Getting all of California Indian Country on the same page is no simple task. There are more than 100 tribes in the state. And they range from the wealthy and well known to rural tribes that struggle to get the most basic services. Pechanga and San Manuel were the among the major contributors in the campaign to defeat Proposition 27 in 2022. Financed by seven commercial sports betting operators, Prop. 27 would have legalised digital sports betting across California, but the tribes opposed it.
The tribal mantra continues to be that any gaming expansion must originate in Indian Country. Tribes have exclusivity for Class III gaming. And they will not be rushed.
“We have come too far to rush into this to potentially damage the foundation that we have built,” Siva said. “For 2026 we’re being very patient. The outlook is looking toward the future.”
The somewhat hidden news from the session is that tribes appear to have reached at least a top-line consensus. Chacon repeatedly used the word “ownership” when talking about legalisation. She indicated that this means that all tribes must buy into a plan.
The discourse is slightly different than it had been previously, when the word used was “consensus.”
Sharing the wealth
California tribes have what’s called a Revenue Sharing Trust Fund (RSTF) from which gaming tribes currently funnel $1.1 million (£891,591/€1.05 million) per year to non-gaming tribes. The RSTF will surely be up for discussion among tribes as they sort out how to share the wealth once sports betting–and eventually online casino–are legalised. The $1.1 million figure dates to 1999, and given inflation and the changing economy, raising it seems to make sense.
The idea behind the RSTF is that tribes that are not geographically positioned to have land-based casinos can still get some benefit from legal gambling. An online component could change that.
In 2022, the tribes were aiming to legalise in-person wagering only while commercial operators were looking at digital betting. None of the tribal leaders made clear Tuesday whether the next initiative would be in-person only or have a digital component.
Sweepstakes not welcome
The rise of sweepstakes continues to be a key issue for California tribes. Moderator Jason Giles, executive director of the Indian Gaming Association, asked if sweepstakes ads are putting pressure on the tribes to legalise. Multiple sweepstakes companies, which are unregulated in California, are advertising on television and other mediums.
“They are getting away with it by saying that it’s a non-play, that there is no money,” Chacon said. “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.”
IGA conference chairman Victor Rocha has been stunned by the rise of sweepstakes and last fall ran a series of webinars about them. The unregulated operators have served to galvanise the legal industry and even give tribes and commercial operators — often at odds — a common enemy.
“It is a violation of both our exclusivity and infringing on our sovereignty,” Hernandez said of sweepstakes.
