Fact Checked by 
Proponents of sports betting in Minnesota suffered a surprise setback when a bill failed on a tie vote at the Senate committee meeting on February 13th.
Senate File 757, a holdover from the previous session, had narrowly failed to pass before. If approved, it would have allowed sports betting at the state’s casinos and through mobile apps. Under the proposal, Native American tribes, which operate Minnesota’s casinos, would have held exclusive rights to all sports betting—both online and in-person—while racing tracks would have received a share of the revenue.
Many believed the bill had a strong chance of passing this time, as it had broad support from tribal nations, national sports betting companies, state sports teams, horse racing tracks, and charitable gambling organizations.
Past efforts to legalize sports betting have often failed due to opposition from either tribal nations or racing tracks, as one side was typically dissatisfied with the terms or their share of the revenue. However, this was the first bill to receive backing from both groups.
During a hearing earlier in February, Sen. Matt Klein, the bill’s main sponsor, emphasized its unique level of support, stating, “This bill, for the first time, enjoys the support of the previous combatants. There are other sports wagering bills before this committee. None of them enjoys the support of the coalition I have described.”
Why it failed
Despite backing from so many groups, the bill still had six lawmakers vote no in the Senate State Government Committee. It was a partisan issue, as the six who voted against it were a mix of liberal and conservative members ( two DFLers and four Republicans). So, what is the reason behind the failure?
Well, one factor appears to be that the proposal focused too much on keeping all interested gambling parties happy and not enough on changing the minds of anti-gambling opposition.
For example, Sen.Jon Marty, DFL-Roseville, had introduced his own bill, Senate File 978, relating to sports betting in the same committee (which he didn’t ask Senators to move forward with). His bill would allocate half of all revenues to addiction support services—much higher than the 8.5% allocation in the SF757.
Marty’s bill also included several further restrictions for sports betting, including:
- Liability for sportsbooks that encourage addictive behavior.
- Restrictions on where sportsbooks can advertise, with restrictions for mediums where there are a lot of young people.
- No advertising on public property, including sports stadiums.
- Increase funding for gambling addiction resources and mental health in schools.
Klein’s bill did include certain proposals to protect consumers, such as banning gambling app push notifications, restricting promotional offers sportsbooks could offer so as not to incentivize problem gamblers to bet even more, banning gambling advertising in schools or college campuses, and banning in-game betting on collegiate sports. However, it seems this was not enough for the six Senators who voted no.
Sen. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, clearly did not think the bill did enough to protect his constituents, stating, “Knowing it’s going to create a societal problem, we tax the industry we’re allowing in the bill, we pile that money up in government and develop programs with the hope that the government will solve the problem we created with the bill. Members, I call that insanity.”
Skepticism of big sportsbooks
Another potential factor in the bill’s failure is the skepticism many members of the Minnesota government have of big sportsbooks. Earlier in the year, Senate Finance Committee Chair John Marty, DFL-Roseville, held a hearing to examine the exploitative tactics used by these big betting companies and the financial and social damage they inflict on players, their families, and the community.
“I do not trust a predatory industry, especially the tech industry,” said Sen. Erin Maye Quade, DFL-Apple Valley. “Every single thing on our phones—from the notifications to the endless scroll functions—was modeled after the most addictive parts of gambling.”
She added, “If the industry likes this bill, it’s probably not good because it is the lack of protections that make them money.”
What’s next for sports betting in Minnesota?
After the bill failed to pass, there was a lot of disappointment from those behind it and those backing it. “Today, the committee missed an opportunity to advance legislation that Minnesotans have been demanding for years. Our constituents, tribes, and charities are more than ready for legal and responsible sports wagering—it’s time for lawmakers to catch up and get this done.” Klein said.
Going forward, there is still a chance that sports betting may be legalized in the state this year, but some major changes would likely be needed to sway those skeptical of sports betting and its potential harms. However, any changes made will need to be balanced with keeping the tribes and tracks happy.
