Agreements, addiction and lawsuits: As Gov. Evers decides whether to legalize online sports betting, there's a wide range of issues
MILWAUKEE (CBS 58) -- Earlier this month, Wisconsin lawmakers passed a bill that would expand sports betting in the state by allowing people to make wagers online.
Governor Tony Evers will soon have to decide whether to sign the bill into law. Evers has said his decision will hinge on whether the state's 11 tribes with gaming compacts can agree on how to offer online sports betting throughout Wisconsin.
In the meantime, a multitude of questions still exist around what online sports betting could mean for Wisconsin.
CBS 58 explored those subjects in a two-part series analyzing an ongoing debate over whether online sports betting is legal under the Legislature's bill, how much revenue it could generate for Wisconsin, why Evers is saying the tribes currently are not on the same page, as well as whether expanding sports betting would cause a substantial increase in gambling addiction.
The Wild West?
Dominic Ortiz, the CEO of Potawatomi Hotel & Casino, called on Evers to sign Assembly Bill 601 into law during an interview with CBS 58 last week.
He stated Potawatomi's Milwaukee sportsbook is the nation's biggest sportsbook by handle, meaning the total amount of money wagered.
Ortiz said on a typical National Football League Sunday last year, bettors would make about 40,000 total wagers.
"Give us a chance," Ortiz said. "Give us a chance. We've proven that across the state."
There's no way to factcheck Ortiz's claim since the Wisconsin Department of Administration (DOA) allows tribes to report an overall gaming revenue total without disclosing the sources of those dollars, i.e. how much game from table games versus sports betting.
Ortiz and Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August (R-Lake Geneva) offered similar arguments for why legalizing online sports betting is a net positive for Wisconsin.
Both men pointed to the proliferation of "prediction market" platforms, such as Kalshi and Polymarket. They allow people to bet on just about any outcome you can think of: Elections, global events, like the war in Iran, and yes, sports.
"If the prediction markets didn't exist, if the illegal overseas [gambling] sites didn't exist," August said, "This would be a very different conversation."
Ortiz and supporters in the Legislature have said people will keep betting on sports regardless of its legality. If the state is regulating it, much of that money would at least benefit Wisconsin tribes while also boosting state revenue.
"We should try to put as much of that traffic into a safe, well-regulated system versus The Wild West," August said. "Which is what we have right now."
Tribes not on the same page?
In February, the Assembly passed the sports betting bill on a voice vote. State Rep. Adam Neylon (R-Pewaukee) could be heard on the floor as one of the few "no" votes, and he confirmed that day three other GOP Assembly members opposed the bill.
The Senate passed the bill on March 17 in a 21-12 vote that had both bipartisan support and bipartisan opposition. Twelve Democrats and nine Republicans voted yes on the bill, while nine Republicans and three Democrats voted against it.
One day after the Senate vote, Evers told reporters he would only sign the bill if the state's tribes were on board.
"I'm hopeful we can get something done," Evers said. "But I also am very concerned about the fact that, apparently, not all of the tribal nations are with this, but I have some time to check that out."
The answer was similar to Evers' response when asked about it at a February WisPolitics luncheon event in Madison.
When asked about Evers' comments, Ortiz called on the governor to facilitate a conversation with the 11 tribes that have gaming compact agreements. He also said unanimous agreement should not be a condition for signing the bill.
"I would say, 'Governor, pull all the tribes together and listen. Listen to what we're saying,'" Ortiz said. "We don't require all Republicans and Democrats [to reach] 100% [agreement] to move progress and make legislation."
Jon Greendeer, president of the Ho-Chunk Nation, said he supported the online sports betting bill and hopes Evers will sign it.
At the same time, Greendeer said he opposed the idea of modifying all 11 tribal compacts in order to expand sports betting.
The Ho-Chunk still hope to launch in-person sports betting, but Greendeer added the tribe currently doesn't plan to offer online betting.
Because different tribes are in different situations, Greendeer said the state shouldn't take a one-size-fits-all approach to changing tribal compacts.
"No other service, entertainment, or retail enterprise in the state is compelled to surrender authority of their revenues to similar or competitor businesses in order to exist," Greendeer told CBS 58. "As sports betting is implemented, it is critical that tribes are provided the latitude to determine if and how they choose to participate, and to administer this industry in a manner that aligns with their governance and priorities."
Evers has not yet gotten received the bill. Based on the Legislature's calendar, April 2 is the probably the latest lawmakers could send him the online sports betting bill.
From there, Evers has six days, excluding Sunday, to act on bills passed during the March 17-19 floor period. That would leave April 9 as the deadline for Evers to act on the bill.
Under state law, if the governor does not act on a bill in time, it automatically becomes law.
"Give us a chance," Ortiz said. "Give us a chance. We've proven that across the state. We've proven that with retail sports betting. I would tell him to just give a chance and listen to what all the tribes are saying, and I think when you do, you'll be on their side and see that this is a win for all tribes and the state of Wisconsin."
Big money, big lobbying
A look across the rest of the Midwest gives a glimpse into how lucrative online sports betting can be for a state.
According to data aggregated by the American Gaming Association, Illinois collects $279.3 million in annual tax revenue from online sports wagers.
In Ohio, it generates $181.9 million. Even in states where it hasn't been as big of a moneymaker, Indiana still took in $46.3 million.
Wisconsin's Department of Administration doesn't require tribes to disclose exactly how much of their gaming revenue came from sports betting. Instead, the state only shares total gaming figures.
Behind the scenes at the Capitol, there was lots of lobbying around the bill. Large sports betting companies, such as DraftKings, FanDuel and MGM all registered in opposition.
Those companies also worked to rally public support for opening the bill to all organization and not only tribes.
CBS 58 requested an interview with their group, the Sports Betting Alliance, but the group did not provide any comment for this story.
Among those lobbying for the bill were the Potawatomi and Ho-Chunk tribes. The Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce registered in support of the bill, as did the Milwaukee Brewers.
The Brewers did not respond to questions about why the ballclub was supportive of the measure.
'Wisconsin can find the middle road'
Across the U.S., Wisconsin is one of 31 states with some form of legalized sports betting. A total of 19 states currently do not allow online sports betting, according to the American Gaming Association.
While expanding sports betting would give Wisconsin a revenue boost, there's also the risk of increased social cost.
Shane Kraus, an associate professor at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, has extensively researched ties between sports gambling and addictive behavior.
Kraus said legalizing online betting inherently carries more risk because it would become even easier for people to be betting while they're under the influence of alcohol and drugs.
"The issue with online, why it's greater, is they can do it anywhere," Kraus said. "From the privacy at home, they can be out, so the chances they've been drinking and using more substances while betting is greater off-property than on-property."
Kraus said he believed Wisconsin's decision to have only tribal casinos authorized to offer online betting was more responsible than allowing large private companies into the state.
"I think they're doing a little bit better job, I have to be honest, with addressing problem gambling and some of these things," Kraus said. "Moreso than, say, DraftKings, online sportsbooks that do, I think, nothing, actually."
Kraus pointed to Michigan, one of the states to more recently allow online sports betting. He said gaming officials there were concerned with private companies' marketing efforts, where they appeared to target low-income Black residents with offers.
Another way Kraus said states can minimize the risk of increasing addiction is by limiting which types of bets are allowed.
Kraus said live betting -- wagers made during a game -- as well as player-specific prop bets and parlays hinging on multiple different outcomes are far more troublesome than single bets made before a game.
"Not all sports betting is equally risky," Kraus said. "There really are differences. The live bets, prop bets are bad. Parlays? Bad news bears."
Kraus said his research found live betting was more likely to lead to substantial losses because people are more likely to be impaired while they're watching a game.
"And when you're drinking," Kraus said, "You're not making great choices."
August said the state was working with the tribes to ensure there would be protections.
One of those regulations would be allowing only debit/ACH transfers into a bettor's online account.
"No credit cards," August said. "So people couldn't rack up credit card debt."
August said lawmakers also got assurances the tribes wouldn't allow live bets on "negative" plays, such as a missed field goal in football or a missed shot in basketball.
Such restrictions would reduce the risk of players agreeing to throw plays or games in exchange for money on the side.
"We haven't worked out those details, yet," Ortiz said. "But we certainly are at the table and intend to keep responsible gaming at a high level in partnership with our Legislature."
Kraus said any agreements should also include dedicating a set share of the revenue to addiction treatment, and he added the state should be more transparent than it currently is about sources of gaming revenue.
"Find the middle road. Wisconsin can find the middle road," Kraus said. "[The state should say] 'We're gonna allow it, the tribes, but we're gonna really ask the tribes - what are you gonna do for sports betting in our community to help these people if they have an issue?'"
'You couldn't do this before'
Right-wing criticism of the bill has come in two forms: First, there is the argument Wisconsin should not allow tribes to have a monopoly over online betting. Then, there is the belief among some legalizing online sports gambling in this manner violates the state constitution.
Democratic leaders in the Legislature said their support hinged on the extension being limited to tribal operators.
If Evers does sign the sports betting bill, the next stop might well be the courtroom.
Lucas Vebber, a deputy counsel for the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, argued the Legislature does not have the authority to expand sports betting.
"I would anticipate that somebody will be filing a legal challenge, whether it's us or somebody else," Vebber said. "I think this is a pretty cut and dry case that'll almost certainly be resolved by the courts."
Vebber points to a 1993 constitutional amendment in which Wisconsin voters placed limits on the expansion of gambling.
He argues that amendment explicitly prohibits the Legislature from further legalizing sports betting, which was initially done via compact agreements between Evers and tribes.
The language of the bill redefines the term "bet" to exclude any sports wagers made on a mobile device, as long as that wager is processed by a server on tribal land.
"I think the pretty simple response to that is, 'Hey, you couldn't do this before. That's why you needed to pass the bill,'" Vebber said. "So, by passing the bill, you're authorizing something that was previously not authorized."
Vebber suggested there could also be a challenge to the bill on the basis of the 14th Amendment, arguing limiting online betting to tribal casinos is discriminatory.
August maintained tribes' exclusive rights to casino-style gaming and sports betting prove there's nothing illegal about Wisconsin's online sports betting approach.
He noted the bill is based on Florida's "hub-and-spoke" model of tying bets to tribal servers, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the Florida law in 2024.
"Our constitution gives this exclusive right to our tribal partners," August said. "People can argue whether they think that's a good idea or not, but that is literally what the constitution says, and there's no way around that."