iGB Examination: Proposals 27 and 26 appear likely to be rejected in the upcoming week’s vote; Zak Thomas-Akoo inquires about the issues and how the sector can more effectively promote itself to voters?
Homepage > Law & Compliance > Law > California Sports Wagering: What’s the Problem?
So what’s the matter with California sports wagering?
California, with a population of 39.2 million, is the most populated state in the US. If it were a nation, it would have the fifth-largest economy globally. The state is home to Silicon Valley, the global gem of the modern economy; boasts one of the strongest networks of universities worldwide, and is home to Los Angeles, the second-largest city in the US. But it seems this prosperity won’t be flowing into sports betting anytime soon, as the state’s sports betting proposals are likely to be rejected.
According to a survey by the University of California, Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies (IGS), both ballot measures are lagging: the tribe-led retail-only Proposition 26, with 31% support and 42% opposition, and the business-led Proposition 27, which would permit online betting, with 27% support and 52% opposition.
“We’re absolutely going to live to fight another day,” FanDuel CEO Amy Howe stated at G2E, acknowledging that Proposition 27 might be rejected.
The failure of California sports wagering would be a significant setback for the industry.
Nevertheless, this wasn’t a mere chance occurrence.
This outcome stems from a tactical blunder that shattered the gaming sector, ignited a fierce advertising battle, tainted sports betting in the eyes of the electorate, bewildered many, and ultimately failed to present a compelling vision for its stance.
The defeat of Proposition 27 will be attributed to a misinformation campaign that misrepresented its true objective, treating voters as naive individuals—a string of avoidable errors that will negatively impact the sports betting industry for years to come.
The industry must engage in some fundamental introspection. What went awry? Why did this transpire? How can we improve for the future?
A Divided Family
Commercial gaming operators struggle to compete with tribes even in the most favorable circumstances, and California exemplified this reality.
“They were cautioned,” Victor Rocha, head of the National Indian Gaming Association, stated to The Washington Post.
“This is one of those lessons in the gaming world, akin to: don’t stare directly at the sun, look both ways when crossing the street, and avoid antagonizing California tribes.”
The truly astounding revelation in the Berkeley IGS report is that voters who were exposed to more advertising were less likely to endorse either ballot measure.
The highly aggressive and negative tone of the campaign, particularly in its final stages, resulted in this outcome – a predictable consequence of an internal industry conflict. In total, California industry groups invested a staggering $400 million simply to make voters question the legitimacy of sports betting.
The tribes’ opposition to Proposition 27 was widely known, a crucial factor the industry had to acknowledge. The business-driven initiative could have been designed to incorporate tribal concerns.
In numerous states with substantial gaming tribes, the path to legalization often follows a similar pattern, where tribal access to the market is a fundamental element of the legislation. Even if both sides couldn’t reach a mutually agreeable solution, the lack of a conciliatory gesture prompted the tribes to retaliate with an intensity and unity that the operators couldn’t rival.
The tribes appeared to triumph in the advertising battle, successfully portraying the commercial sector as a group of out-of-state corporate entities conducting a misleading campaign. Moreover, due to the emphasis on preserving the existing situation, the resources dedicated to opposing Proposition 27 made it challenging to simultaneously allocate energy towards promoting Proposition 26.
Furthermore, the tribes’ campaign against Proposition 27 was not without merit.
End homelessness campaign
The complete title of the proposal that California citizens will be casting ballots on in the upcoming vote is “California Proposition 27, Legalize Sports Wagering and Homelessness Prevention Fund Initiative.” The issue of homelessness is a significant challenge in California, exacerbated by the state’s housing predicament. Allocating funds from sports wagering to address this issue seems like a sensible approach. However, Proposition 27 is not solely focused on assisting those experiencing homelessness.
Numerous advertisements promoting Proposition 27 make no mention of sports wagering. They solely focus on homelessness funding. The organization backing the referendum, the California Coalition for Resolving Homelessness and Mental Health Support, asserts that the campaign is not being transparent about its true intentions.
Californians are intelligent individuals. They can discern when someone is attempting to deceive them.
If those advocating for the legalization of sports wagering wish to achieve success in future endeavors, they must be forthright about their motivations. They cannot simply feign that their sole objective is to aid homeless individuals.
California Sports Wagering: Another Attempt
Proponents of legalizing sports wagering have indicated their intention to make another attempt in 2024.
Its discouraging to lose this fight, but it also reveals a path to triumph in the future. Firstly, the California gaming tribes are a formidable group that demands respect and careful consideration. Ideally, they should be included in any agreement.
Secondly, you must present a compelling argument for your cause, make a logical case, and be transparent about your goals. People enjoy gambling, what’s the issue with that?
The Tribal Operator Alliance should launch a campaign that is truthful, hopeful, and unified. This will be a strong force – and it’s what they should aim for if the industry wants to benefit from sports betting in California.
Sign up for the iGaming newsletter.