California casinos and gambling information including poker tournaments, slots info, pari-mutuel (dogs & horses), texas hold'em, and more. Find contact information and view pictures of casinos in California. With the most professional sports teams and the largest population in the country, the California sports betting market would undoubtedly become the biggest in the country and fast. Sports betting won’t be heading to California in the near future. After taking two key steps to legalize sports betting in the Golden State, Sen. Bill Dodd pulled the bill that would have allowed sports betting to launch due to opposition from the state’s tribes.

It’s not hard to find a place to gamble in California. The state features almost 100 card rooms and more than 50 tribal California casinos.

However, California is a house divided when it comes to legalized sports betting. At this point, America’s largest state has no definite timeframe for the introduction of wagering on sporting events instate. Proposals continue to surface though, which means interested parties abound.

California residents do have the option to play DFS and enter into sweepstakes type contests. DraftKings, FanDuel and FendOff Sports all operate within the state of California.

Win real cash prizes with sports contests in CA

At the center of this interminable delay are the competing interests of three stakeholders in the Golden State. The three entities in question are:

• Tribal interests
• Cardrooms
• Racetracks

At this point, California would have to pass a constitutional amendment in order to bring sports betting inside its borders. Due to language in a 2000 ballot initiative, the tribal casinos in California have claimed a de jure jurisdiction over all gambling types, including sports betting.

Recent movement on sports betting in California

Democratic Assemblyman Adam Gray of Merced failed to get traction with two previous sports betting proposals. Those included an assembly bill in 2016 and a constitutional amendment in 2017.

During the same time period, an advocacy group called Californians for Sports Betting announced its intention to push for ballot initiatives that would repeal the constitutional language from 2000 that placed so much power in the hands of Native American groups. Needless to say, the tribal interests were not amused. They used their political power to kill almost any mention of sports betting legalization in 2018.

Gray’s failed attempts thus far haven’t deterred him. On June 27, 2019, Gray, along with state Sen. Bill Dodd, introduced into the California Assembly and Senate ACA 16. The amendment would give the CA Legislature the power to authorize and regulate sports betting in the state.

For an amendment to become law in California, first, identical versions need to pass in both the Assembly and Senate by a 2/3 margin. It then must pass the desk of Gov. Gavin Newsom before going onto the ballot, where it needs a simple majority vote. If ACA makes it through both houses, it could arrive on the November 2020 ballot.

California tribes put a horse in the race

On Nov. 13, a coalition of 18 California tribes filed papers with the state attorney general’s office for a sports betting initiative of their own.

“The California Sports Wagering and Unlawful Gambling Enforcement Act” would allow sports wagering in tribal gaming casinos and licensed racetracks. It also includes a proposed 10% tax on gross gaming revenue from sports betting to be used for regulatory costs, public safety, education, and mental health programs.

The amendment would allow wagers on professional, college and some amateur sports. Interestingly, it would prohibit betting on high school contests and games involving California college teams, which will likely be a major point of contention. Another point of contention is the lack of inclusion of mobile or online gambling provisions.

The initiative would also strengthen the power of the California attorney general’s office to regulate gambling. The amendment, if passed as is, would also allow tribal casinos to begin offering roulette and craps.

Like ACA 16, the tribes’ amendment proposal would need to get through the California Legislature before making its way to the 2020 ballot. While it’s unlikely to gain the necessary approval in its current form, the tribal interest seems like a step in the right direction for legalized sports betting.

The largest sports betting market in the country

The AGA estimates Americans wagered $154 billion on sports in 2016. It also claims nearly all of those wagers were illegal.

Broken down by population, that would mean California’s approximately 39.14 million people bet an estimated $18.7 billion on sports in 2016. California is the largest state in America, so it would likely represent the largest sports betting market in the country.

Sports Betting In California Reddit

According to Legal Sports Report, that activity would generate first-year revenues of around $100 million. While that figure is a drop in the bucket for California’s $180 billion state budget, it would still be a chunk of new income for a state with budgetary issues.

The wheels appear to be in motion for sports betting to go to a popular vote in 2020. What is less clear is whether it will be the California Legislature or the California tribal interests holding the reigns on regulation.

What would a legal sports betting market look like in California?

Based upon the various attempted proposals in the state, California sports betting would feature:

• Licensed gaming facilities could take live bets on sports. Online/mobile wagering may be off-limits, depending which body is overseeing regulations.
• Players wagering would have to be 21 or older as well as inside California’s borders to bet.
• There would be licensing fees andtaxes on revenues for operators.
• Wagers could be placed on professional, college and some amateur sports. If tribal interests get their way, wagering on games involving California college teams may be prohibited.

The biggest questions surrounding the future California sports betting market include who will be doing the regulating and which facilities will be authorized to accept wagers. With all the competing interests at play, these aren’t simple questions to answer.

Whether either or both of the most recent initiatives make it to the 2020 ballot remains to be seen. The biggest threat to getting sports betting legalized in the Golden State remains dispute over regulatory power and competing stakeholder interests.

The three stakeholder groups have shown no hesitation about contesting progress on bills that look to cut them out of the profits, no matter the cost. The tribes in particular have demonstrated willingness to go to great lengths also to protect their authority over gambling regulation.

Sports betting laws in the United States

Of course, in times past, the proposed sports betting bills had to contend with the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA). PASPA became law in 1992, making Nevada the only state allowed to offer legal sports betting.

In May of 2018, the US Supreme Court ruled that PASPA was unconstitutional and struck down the federal ban on sports betting. Now that the major hurdle is out of the way, the floodgates for state-regulated sports wagering have opened. California is already late to the party, but could be one of the next to join in.

Daily fantasy sports in California

Daily fantasy sports (DFS) can sometimes serve as an appetizer for sports betting in states. The relatively new industry shares many of the same characteristics. Its two main companies, DraftKings and FanDuel, are having little difficulty expanding their businesses into bona fide sports betting and gambling.

With regard to the Golden State, one half of the California legislature stood firmly behind a daily fantasy sports (DFS) bill in 2016. The bill breezed through committee hearings. It then came up one vote shy of passing unanimously in the California Assembly.

From there, the Senate sat on the bill. It added an amendment in June. The bill headed to committee, where it died. The San Manuel and Morongo bands of Mission Indians that own and operate a pair of Native American casinos in the state voiced opposition.

Even with the legality of DFS in California still an open question, major operators continue doing business. Lawmakers seem disinterested in stopping them either.

This means there is no legal framework, fees, or taxes associated with DFS operations in California. However, these operations still accept California players, albeit by functioning in what amounts to a grey area.

Legalized sports betting has flourished across the country, and for a while it looked as though California, with the backing of the NFL, NBA and Major League Baseball, would be the next state to embrace it.

America’s mighty sports leagues, however, just ran into a force they couldn’t defeat: California’s Indian tribes.

A proposal to amend the state Constitution, and usher in a bold new era of gambling, died in the Legislature on Monday. SCA 6, which would have allowed sports betting via cell phones and computers, was pulled off the table by co-author Sen. Bill Dodd one day before the legislation faced a pivotal committee vote.

The plan, which proponents said would have generated millions in new tax revenue, ran into fierce opposition from the state’s wealthy and politically powerful Native American tribes. The tribes have been pushing a far more limited version of sports betting that excludes online wagers and limits it to their casinos and a few horse racetracks.

Dodd’s announcement was a concession to “the power the tribes have gained over the last 20 years,” said Ken Adams, a gaming industry consultant in Reno. “Anybody who wants to get a bill through the Legislature is going to have to face that.”

Monday’s development leaves California as something of an outlier as sports betting gains momentum elsewhere. Nearly two-dozen states have legalized it the past two years.

The professional sports leagues, after years of warning their games could be corrupted, have made their peace with gambling, and are cutting deals to ensure they benefit financially. Even some organizations that usually oppose gambling believe Californians should be allowed to bet on sports openly.

“There’s a black market on it,” said Cheryl Schmit of the anti-gambling group Stand Up for California. “It’s much better if it’s out in the public.”

There’s also the issue of money. Californians already wager billions of dollars on sports, through offshore websites or illegally through bookies. Elected officials covet the tax revenue that legalized betting could bring to a state that’s had to plug a $54 billion deficit because of the coronavirus.

Dodd, who co-authored the measure with Assemblyman Adam Gray, D-Merced, said their bill could have produced $500 million a year in revenue for the treasury.

“It remains important that we lift this widespread practice out of the shadows to make it safer and to generate money for the people of California. I will continue to be engaged in the issue as we work toward 2022,” Dodd said in a prepared statement.

The tribes aren’t opposed to sports betting. But they want to keep it confined “to brick-and-mortar facilities,” said Anthony Roberts, chairman of the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, which owns Cache Creek Casino Resort in Yolo County.

Roberts and other tribal leaders had other major objections to the Dodd-Gray proposal. The lawmakers’ bill would have put the tribes’ longtime gaming rivals, California’s card rooms, on a more secure legal footing to continue operating. The tribes see the card rooms as illegal and want to give the state greater authority to crack down on them.

The tribes are trying to get their proposal on the November 2022 ballot.

Why tribes oppose online sports betting

Both the Dodd-Gray and tribal proposals would allow sports betting inside tribal casinos and a handful of horse racetracks — including Cal Expo in Sacramento under the legislators’ plan.

Both would allow wagers on professional and college sports, although the tribes would prohibit bets on college games involving teams from California. Tribal officials say their public opinion surveys revealed voters aren’t comfortable with allowing bets on California college teams.

The major split was over online betting.

Dodd and Gray’s proposal would have allowed it. Experts say it’s where the money is. In other states where it’s legal, 85 percent of the action occurs online.

The sports leagues want online wagering, too. The NBA, Major League Baseball, the PGA golf tour and five of California’s professional teams — the Giants, A’s, Warriors, Dodgers and Angels — sent a June 1 letter supporting Dodd and Gray’s proposal and insisting that online betting be included.

“To ensure that consumers move away from the illegal market that exists today, any legal sports betting framework must include options for Californians to wager online and on mobile devices,” the group wrote. A separate letter from the NFL called mobile betting “a key component of moving the illegal market into a regulated setting.”

The tribes, however, say online sports betting would be nearly impossible to regulate — and could open the door to under-age gambling.

“There’s no way to know who’s using that hand-held device. It could be a child. That’s our biggest worry,” said Roberts of the Yocha Dehe tribe.

Tribal officials say online wagering — because it would take place off Indian lands — might be illegal under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, or IGRA, the federal law governing tribal casinos.

Is There Sports Betting In California

“The leagues, the industry, everybody’s pushing sports betting, but the tribes are still handicapped by IGRA,” said Victor Rocha, a consultant to casino tribes.

I. Nelson Rose, a consultant and legal expert on Indian gaming, said the tribes’ opposition is also rooted in practical business concerns.

Sports betting simply isn’t very profitable, no matter where the wagering occurs, Rose said. Tribes would rather keep their customers in their casinos dropping money into the slot machines.

“They don’t want people to stay home and bet on sports events,” said Rose, a professor emeritus at Whittier College. “They want people to come on in and play the slot machines and table games.”

The tribes have poured $8.5 million into their ballot measure, which would limit sports betting to casinos and racetracks.

Dodd offered a compromise that would have phased in online betting over several years. But the tribes weren’t persuaded. They acknowledge that online sports betting is probably coming eventually to California — but want to control when and how it arrives.

Having online betting “dictated to us is unacceptable,” James Siva, chairman of the California Nations Indian Gaming Association, said during a recent webinar on tribal gaming issues.

“Whether online gaming is three years down the line, five years down the line, if it’s 10 years down the line, or if it’s not even in the conversation ... it needs to be a tribal decision.” Siva’s tribe, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, owns Morongo Casino Resort near Palm Springs.

Court opens door to sports betting

For decades, Nevada casinos held a monopoly on legal sports betting in the United States. A 1992 federal law outlawed the practice, although Nevada’s sports books, a fixture since the late 1940s, were grandfathered in, along with limited forms of sports betting offered in Oregon, Montana and Delaware.

All that changed when New Jersey legalized sports betting and challenged the constitutionality of the 1992 law. In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with New Jersey. Soon there was a flurry of states joining New Jersey and enacting their own sports betting laws.

Currently, 19 states allow it in one form or another. Three other states plus Washington, D.C., have legalized sports betting but the laws haven’t gone into effect yet, according to gambling website SportsHandle.com.

After decades of resistance to the issue, sports leagues have begun signing marketing deals and other partnerships with gambling interests. Barely two months after the Supreme Court ruled, the NBA agreed to a dealing making MGM casinos the “official gaming partner” of the NBA and the WNBA. Major League Baseball made a similar deal with MGM a few months later.

The economic shutdown created by the COVID-19 pandemic creates an additional impetus for legalized sports betting. States “are desperate for money to balance their budgets,” Rose said.

However, sports betting might not be the revenue goldmine that state officials imagine.

For one thing, the tribes wouldn’t be obligated to contribute anything to the state’s coffers; any contributions would be subject to negotiation with the governor.

California’s tribal casinos, an $8 billion-a-year industry in California, are not subject to state income tax. They once contributed as much as $330 million a year to the general fund through compacts negotiated with the governor, but that amount has dwindled considerably after a judge ruled those payments constituted an illegal tax. They do provide about $170 million a year to a pair of state-run funds that help non-gaming tribes and operate programs for problem gamblers.

The racetracks’ winnings from sports gambling would be subject to taxation. But Richard Auxier, who’s studied sports betting for the Tax Policy Center and Urban Institute, said the state’s annual tax revenue would likely fall way short of the $500 million estimated by Dodd.

“It’s definitely not a windfall,” he said.

And without online wagering, the state’s take would be even smaller.

“You’ve got to go online because that’s where the money is,” he said.

California tribes wield political clout

For years, California Indian tribes struggled to make a living off gambling. The laws were unclear, and the tribes were reduced to dusty bingo halls and gambling tents that did little to lift them out of poverty.

Then came Proposition 1A, in 2000, a landmark event in the history of California gambling. With a resounding 65 percent of the vote, they won the right to open full-fledged, Vegas-style casinos.

The proposition also gave them a statewide exclusive right to operate slot machines, a casino’s most profitable asset. Four years later, when their exclusivity was challenged at the ballot box, they spent millions and crushed the effort.

Proposition 68 was born out of the state’s budget deficit. It said that unless the tribes surrendered 25 percent of their winnings to the state, racetracks and card rooms could operate slot machines.

The tribes and their allies spent more than $50 million fighting Proposition 68, about twice as much as their opponents. The initiative gained just 16 percent of the vote.

The tribes don’t always win. That same year, they failed to secure passage of Proposition 70, which would have given them the right to operate unlimited numbers of slot machines.

Still, tribal casinos in California have become a major force in California politics. They’ve donated millions to political candidates over the years.

“There’s a lot of money and there’s a lot of power there,” Dodd said last week, when he was still trying to broker a compromise with the tribes. “There’s a lot of sway with lawmakers, we get that.” The senator has received campaign contributions totaling $42,000 from Indian tribes since January 2019.

One influential tribe has stayed on the sidelines during this fight: the United Auburn Indian Community, owner of the ultra-successful Thunder Valley Casino near Lincoln, and no stranger to political skirmishes. The tribe’s spokesman, Doug Elmets, declined comment.

Just about every other big casino tribe joined in the effort to qualify the tribes’ proposal for the ballot, however. Yocha Dehe led the way with a $2 million contribution, followed by $1.5 million each from the tribal owners of the Graton Casino in Rohnert Park, the San Manuel Casino near San Bernardino and the Pechanga Casino in Temecula.

Until the coronavirus stay-at-home order was issued in March, the tribal coalition had spent $7 million collecting signatures and believed it was well on its way toward qualifying its proposal for the 2022 ballot. Although it still has until July 20 under state law to circulate petitions, it’s suing the state and demanding more time.

Tribes vs. California card rooms

Compared to tribal casinos, California’s approximately 70 card rooms are small players. Their annual revenue is barely 10 percent of what the tribes pull in. They wouldn’t be participants in legalized sports betting.

But their future has become the focus of an intriguing subplot in the fight over sports gambling.

It has to do with the somewhat arcane rules governing their operations.

Card rooms technically aren’t allowed to take bets. They have to contract with third-party companies whose employees act as “the bank” and take the bets. Those employees pay the card room a small fee at the beginning of every hand, depending on how much is wagered — the only money card rooms make from gambling. What’s more, the bank role has to be periodically offered around the table, to each customer.

For years Indian tribes have complained to state officials that most card rooms routinely ignore the regulations, particularly the requirement about offering the bank role around the table. They say the card rooms’ operations represent an intrusion on the tribes’ exclusive legal right to offer Vegas-style gambling in California.

Now they want to do something about that. The tribes’ ballot initiative would allow the state to close down anyone violating the rules — up to 30 days for repeat offenders — and give anyone the right to sue the card rooms for violations if the state won’t.

Dodd’s proposal would have fixed a gray area in the law to make clear that the card rooms’ games are legal. At the same time, last week he offered the tribes an olive branch by proposing stricter rules for the card rooms — for instance, requiring customers to accept the “bank” role periodically instead of merely having it offered to them.

The tribes rejected Dodd’s compromise.

For their part, card rooms have raised $7 million to fight the tribes’ proposal, which they view as an attempt to severely damage their viability.

“The reality is that our games are legal,” said Kyle Kirkland, owner of Club One Casino in Fresno and president of the California Gaming Association, which lobbies for the card rooms.

But he acknowledged that card rooms may be facing a difficult fight.

“Certainly the tribes are organized and influential and have talented people working for them,” he said. “I would hate to think it’s only whoever has the most money gets to dictate the rules.”

———

©2020 The Sacramento Bee (Sacramento, Calif.)

Visit The Sacramento Bee (Sacramento, Calif.) at www.sacbee.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.