Minnesota Sports Betting Legislation Back on the Table

After several unsuccessful attempts, sports betting legislation is back on the docket, and bipartisan support may finally whisk the bill to the governor’s desk.

Minnesota Sports Betting Act 3.0

Minnesota has yet to pass a sports betting bill, but it hasn’t been for a lack of trying. Last year the parties nearly reached an agreement to assuage the state’s various stakeholders, including the tribal gaming nations, charitable gambling organizations, and the horse racing industry.

However, time ran out, and the legislative session ended without any resolution to the matter, but a new year brings renewed determination to get a sports betting bill passed. To that end, Republican Sen. Jeremy Miller has released his Minnesota Sports Betting Act 3.0, which “builds on the bipartisan cooperation and momentum from last session.”

“This updated proposal combines ideas from the last two versions of my Minnesota Sports Betting Act along with proposals from other sports betting bills that have made progress in the legislature,” Miller said in a statement. “It also includes ideas brought forward by constituents and stakeholders. The goal of this proposal is to bring folks together to work toward a bipartisan solution to legalize sports betting in Minnesota.”

Miller contends sports betting could bring the state $80 million in new taxes based on a 20% tax rate of sportsbooks adjusted gross revenues. In Miller’s proposal, 50% of those taxes would go toward tax relief for charitable gambling while 20% would be earmarked for the state’s horse racing industry. Another 25% would be directed to a fund to bring major sporting events to Minnesota, which would stimulate more economic growth, and 2.5% would be reserved for problem gambling and mental health resources as well as youth sports.

Tribal Control

One of the biggest hurdles in getting sports betting legislation passed has been which of the stakeholders would have control of mobile gaming in the state. Under Senator Miller’s bill, the 11 tribal nations would be the exclusive operators of mobile and retail sports betting in Minnesota. Because sports betting has increased bipartisan, albeit not universal, support, the chances of passage are hopeful this time around.

DFL Sen. Matt Klein said, “The only things that I think we’ll be able to really pass this year are bipartisan initiatives, given the state of the House and a very close division in the Senate, and sports wagering is one of the few things that, from day one, was a bipartisan issue. I think that gives it a smoother pathway than other bills.”

However, there are vocal opponents to sports betting, and Senator John Marty is among them. Marty had sponsored his own industry-unfriendly version of a sports betting package, and among several items unlikely to pass muster with stakeholders was his 40% tax on adjusted gross revenues.

Senator Nick Frentz recently co-authored his own sports betting bill for this session with Senator Matt Klein and said, “Simple fact is we’ve had testimony ignoring the fact many Minnesotans want this.”

Marty’s Senate Hearing Draws Criticism

Senator Marty also held a hearing in front of the Senate Finance Committee earlier this month on the harmful effects of gambling, but pro-sports betting advocates labeled Marty’s tactics a grandstanding stunt.

After the hearing, Brandt Iden, VP of government affairs at Fanatics, was quoted as saying, “I was disappointed to see what happened in Minnesota today. Setting aside the arguments either for or against the testimony presented, my larger concern was the lack of complete policy discourse and debate on the issue. As a former lawmaker and [Committee] chairman, I know full well that the chair retains the ability to limit testimony in any fashion they wish.

“However, frankly, I think a media stunt like this does a disservice to the institution and is disrespectful to your colleagues who were duly elected to represent their communities, engage in thoughtful political debate on both sides of an issue, and ultimately make their own decisions as to what’s best for their constituencies.”