Brandt Iden: <\/strong>Obviously, from a stakeholder industry perspective, all eyes are on California. It\u2019s the big prize, it has the largest population, and everybody knows they have to be a part of it. And when I say everybody, I mean from a commercial standpoint. That\u2019s why they\u2019re willing to spend the money they have and will spend plenty more.<\/p>\nAnd then you\u2019ve got the tribes saying, this is our market. This has been our market. We\u2019ve got sovereignty here, and we want to control how it gets done. It\u2019s a high-stakes poker game about how California will play out.<\/p>\n
At this point, we\u2019ve got a situation where you\u2019re going to have a commercial proposal on the ballot, and then you\u2019re going to have the retail proposal. Now, they could both pass and work in tandem, and they could both not pass.<\/p>\n
And I say that because typically, what happens is that when you get one of these high-profile ballot initiatives like California, there will be a tremendous amount of spend from both sides, a lot of positive campaigning and a lot of negative campaigning.<\/p>\n
That means a lot of potential misinformation as voters get inundated with so much information. They\u2019re going to be overwhelmed by the time November rolls around. Unfortunately, I think you end up in a situation, as we\u2019ve seen statistically when there are competing ballot proposals, voters tend to vote no. I\u2019m not saying that will be the case here, but statistically speaking, it favors a no vote on both.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s a long way to go between now and November. We\u2019ll see.<\/p>\n
Sowing Division<\/h2>\n
Steve Ruddock: <\/strong>If the commercial proposal starts polling a bit better, is there a chance its backers will look to divide the tribes and form partnerships with specific tribes?<\/p>\nBrandt Iden: <\/strong>I think there was some hope within the stakeholder community that those conversations would\u2019ve happened prior to where we are today, and we were going to get to some sort of resolution and compromise between the commercial providers and the tribal folks.<\/p>\nNow that doesn\u2019t mean a deal still can\u2019t be reached because I think that those conversations could continue, as you have so many tribes and differences of opinion in California. You have some tribes that support a more online model than the current retail-only tribal proposal.<\/p>\n
So, you may see some division there. And I still think, where does this go at the end of the day? It\u2019s quite possible that we see some model that looks maybe a bit more like Michigan. Is there a compromise to be reached where it\u2019s tribal control, but they have the opportunity to partner with the big brand names in the industry?<\/p>\n
I think that if you ask the commercial operators, that\u2019s where they would like to see this go. Whether the tribes can get there, I\u2019m not so sure. And I think it all depends on how it shakes out on election day in November.<\/p>\n
What Happens if an Initiative Is Approved?<\/h2>\n
Steve Ruddock: <\/strong>One of the aspects people aren\u2019t talking about is this isn\u2019t a bill. This isn\u2019t a law. It\u2019s a framework. Assuming an initiative passes, what role does the legislature play?<\/p>\nBrandt Iden: <\/strong>I think we will have a flurry of activity after election day. There may be a court case. And you\u2019re exactly right, this is just the framework. And so what happens is the legislature would have to go back and kind of fill in the blanks, as I like to call it. Okay, this is the framework for how we\u2019re supposed to do it, but we\u2019ve got to fill in many details here. Then you have the rule promulgation process and what that looks like and how it will be regulated by the tribes or potentially with the commercials involved. So, there\u2019s a lot of work after election day as to how this thing goes.<\/p>\nAnd I think that means it probably gets pushed out in terms of when folks can actually place a wager in California, more like 2024ish, or maybe 2025. I think it all depends on whether there\u2019s a court case, whether it\u2019s retail-only (which would be a quicker process) or mobile.<\/p>\n
So, unfortunately, I still think we\u2019re a way out, although this is a good step in the right direction. In general, I believe the stakeholder community would like to see some movement in California one way or the other. I think it would be nice to say, now we know where the voters are on this issue because if you look at all the polling right now, both sides will tell you they\u2019re going to pass overwhelmingly, and the other one isn\u2019t. So, it\u2019ll be interesting to see how it plays out.<\/p>\n
Reaching a Compromise<\/h2>\n
Steve Ruddock: <\/strong>While not as contentious, you\u2019ve dealt with this tribal-commercial dynamic firsthand. How do we get stakeholders on the same page? Michigan was rather creative with that. There was a lot of give-and-take, like licensing tribes as commercial operators to avoid stepping on their sovereignty. And policies like a one-for-one launch to prevent competitive advantages. What are some of the behind-the-scenes issues that California\u2019s facing that people don\u2019t realize?<\/p>\nBrandt Iden: <\/strong>There are many moving pieces to that, but I will tell you that what it comes down to is you\u2019ve got all these separate sovereign tribal nations. They are very unique, and they are very different, and they all are looking for something unique when it comes to how they want to do gaming, whether it\u2019s on their reservation or off-reservation. They all have their own ideas about how they would like it to be done.<\/p>\nSo, I know people say, why can\u2019t the tribes just come together and agree to something? It doesn\u2019t really work like that, because they\u2019re all looking for unique things that benefit their sovereign nations. And what makes sense for one doesn\u2019t necessarily make sense for the tribe next door.<\/p>\n
My guess would be one of the contentious behind-closed-doors points is you\u2019ve got the smaller tribes and the larger tribes. And the smaller tribes are probably saying, we\u2019ve got more of a desire to branch out statewide a bit more than maybe the larger tribes do.<\/p>\n
And, it\u2019s because of the player base, right? It\u2019s because of location. It\u2019s because of access to the casinos. And obviously, the larger tribes control the market a bit more than the smaller ones do. It\u2019s those access points of entry that are the same, whether we\u2019re talking about commercial operators or tribal operators. And just because they\u2019re all tribes doesn\u2019t mean they\u2019re necessarily going to agree on it.<\/p>\n
One of the interesting things about the retail initiative is, if you recall, this was out there prior to COVID and really got derailed because of the pandemic and COVID.<\/p>\n
A couple of years ago, the tribes said, we\u2019re interested in mobile, and we\u2019re interested in statewide mobile. We just want to do this incrementally. And we want to start with retail first. I don\u2019t think that position has changed at all with the tribes. I think they want to test the waters and make sure that they maintain their sovereignty with retail first, and then they ease into the market with mobile.<\/p>\n
So even if the retail-only initiative passes, we will eventually see a mobile model in California. I\u2019m not sure what that looks like, but I do believe that the tribes will move to a full mobile model at some point.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A tribal initiative that would bring retail sportsbooks to California\u2019s tribal casinos and racetracks has already qualified for the November ballot. A second initiative backed by commercial sports betting operators that would bring mobile betting to the Golden State is a safe bet to make the ballot. Wagers.com sat down with Brandt Iden, Head of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":24,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[324],"tags":[1176],"class_list":["post-8322","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news","tag-california"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wagers.com\/staging\/4285\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8322","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wagers.com\/staging\/4285\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wagers.com\/staging\/4285\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wagers.com\/staging\/4285\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/24"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wagers.com\/staging\/4285\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8322"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/wagers.com\/staging\/4285\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8322\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8351,"href":"https:\/\/wagers.com\/staging\/4285\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8322\/revisions\/8351"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wagers.com\/staging\/4285\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8322"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wagers.com\/staging\/4285\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8322"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wagers.com\/staging\/4285\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8322"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}