Key Moments:
- The Wisconsin Senate Committee on Agriculture and Revenue held a hearing on Senate Bill 592, sparking debate on online sports betting legalization and implementation.
- The Sports Betting Alliance raised economic concerns over a proposed 60% revenue share with state tribes, arguing it would make market entry unviable for major brands.
- Tribal representatives and major Wisconsin sports teams have endorsed the legislation as written, emphasizing new revenue streams and local control.
Legislative Push for Digital Sports Wagering
The Wisconsin Senate Committee on Agriculture and Revenue recently gathered stakeholders to consider Senate Bill 592, an initiative introduced by Senator Howard Marklein. This bill is designed to allow online sports betting on federally recognized tribal lands, aligning the move with both the state’s existing gaming compacts and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). The legislation adopts a “hub-and-spoke” framework, with all betting servers placed on tribal property as the central regulatory point for digital wagers.
Senator Marklein stated to the committee, “If we do this, it will legalize what a lot of people are doing right now illegally,” emphasizing the widespread and increasing nature of current sports betting activity in Wisconsin. Lawmakers see legalizing such wagering as a necessary step before the market expands further through illegal or out-of-state channels. He clarified that passing the bill would lead to new negotiations with tribal partners and require federal approval from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Marklein and other senators highlighted concerns that, without legal options, Wisconsin residents and the economy are missing out as many residents bet in neighboring states or use unlawful means within state borders.
Stakeholder Perspectives: Industry Objections and Tribal Support
Damon Stewart, speaking for the Sports Betting Alliance (SBA), outlined reservations about the bill’s required partnership and revenue-sharing structure. While the SBA, which includes five sportsbook companies, backs the general move toward legalization, Stewart stressed that compelling operators to give at least 60% of their revenue to tribal partners would be a “non-starter” for commercial brands like FanDuel and DraftKings. He commented, “It’s a bit odd because I’ve been listening to the sponsors and I think we agree on many of the goals, we just don’t think this vehicle gets us there,” continuing, “Online sports betting is a low-margin and capital-intensive business. It is simply not economically feasible for a commercial operator to hand over 60% just for the right to operate in the state.”
By referencing Arkansas as a comparable scenario, Stewart warned that high revenue-sharing terms had kept major operators out of similar markets and argued that a lack of prominent brands would not deter illegal gambling in Wisconsin. Although he did not provide an alternative revenue share figure, he expressed a willingness to collaborate with tribes to find a workable solution that could ensure profitability for all parties.
Tribal and Local Team Support Remains Strong
Addressing potential doubts about a tribal-led wagering system, Jeff Crawford, legal counsel from the Forest County Potawatomi Tribe, asserted that local tribes could successfully operate the state’s sports betting sector. He underlined the backing of major Wisconsin franchises like the Milwaukee Bucks, Green Bay Packers, and Milwaukee Brewers for the bill exactly as presented.
The Ho-Chunk Nation echoed its support, emphasizing that the legislation would provide valuable economic benefits to tribes. Ed Mullen, representing the Ho-Chunk, stressed the importance of fighting illegal betting and pointed to ongoing legal action against Kalshi and Robinhood for allegedly offering a sports betting equivalent on tribal land, in violation of IGRA.
Summary Table: Stakeholder Positions on Senate Bill 592
| Stakeholder | Position | Key Concerns/Support Points |
|---|---|---|
| Senator Howard Marklein | Support | Legalizes existing activity; needs compact renegotiation; aims to capture economic benefits |
| Sports Betting Alliance (SBA) | Conditional Support | Objects to required 60% revenue share with tribes; worried about operator participation and illegal market |
| Wisconsin Tribes | Support | Confident in operational capacity; view as economic opportunity; backed by local teams |
| Milwaukee Bucks, Green Bay Packers, Milwaukee Brewers | Support | Endorse bill as written, per tribal legal counsel |
- Author
Daniel Williams
