Lawmakers in Wisconsin are preparing to vote within weeks on a bill that would legalise online sports betting statewide, reopening a long-running debate over tribal sovereignty, gambling expansion, and how the state should regulate wagering activity that supporters say is already taking place.
Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said legislative leaders are working toward a vote, acknowledging both momentum behind the proposal and lingering concerns among lawmakers.
“It’s already happening,” Vos told the Journal Sentinel. “If we already have it, I would rather say that if we’re going to have it in Wisconsin, it can be regulated in a way that’s more transparent. But there are legitimate concerns, and that’s why we’re trying to look at and address everybody’s concerns.”
Support for the bill is closely tied to the position of Wisconsin’s Native American tribes. Under current law, sports betting is permitted only on tribal land. The proposal would attempt to extend that framework by allowing online wagers to be placed through servers physically located on tribal property, a structure backers argue complies with the state constitution.
Opposition has emerged from multiple quarters. Industry lobbyists, including the Sports Betting Alliance (SBA), say they support legalising sports betting in Wisconsin but not under the bill’s current structure. During a November 4 hearing before the Wisconsin Senate Committee on Agriculture and Revenue, legal advisers for the group, which represents operators such as DraftKings, FanDuel, and bet365, said the proposal was rushed and economically unworkable.
SBA legal representative Damon Stewart urged lawmakers to delay action and engage in further negotiations with tribal leaders.
“We think it’s reasonable to let us have the chance to work with the tribes,” Stewart said. “If we can do that, we believe there’s a way this can be structured so tribes and the state both get the revenue they want.”
Those concerns contributed to the Assembly postponing a scheduled vote in November, citing unresolved issues.
Some lawmakers have also raised objections tied to responsible gambling. Republican Rep. Adam Neylon of Pewaukee warned that expanding online betting could increase problem-gambling risks.
“If you want to play the lottery, you do it with cash, on location,” Neylon said. “We don’t put it on people’s phones and make it super easy to do. Right now, we have a regulated system where, if you want to bet on sports, you can go to a casino. Putting a casino on your phone is a bad deal for Wisconsin.”
Industry questions revenue split
Under the proposed framework, sports betting would operate under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), requiring commercial operators to remit up to 60% of revenue to their tribal partners. Stewart argued that such a structure would deter participation.
“That number is so large, they would lose money,” he said. “It just won’t work for them.”
He pointed to Michigan as an example of a more sustainable model, where tribes and operators collaborate under revenue-sharing agreements widely viewed as successful.
Native American tribes are sovereign nations, and under federal law states cannot directly tax tribal gaming revenue. Instead, tribal–state compacts govern the terms under which Class III gaming, including casino games and sports betting, is permitted.
In Michigan, those compacts require tribes to contribute 2% of net win from Class III electronic games and online sports betting conducted under tribal platforms to local revenue-sharing boards or government units.
Budget pressures add urgency
The debate is unfolding as Wisconsin faces mounting fiscal pressure. According to the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the state is projected to run a $1.4 billion general-fund deficit by the end of the 2027–29 biennium if current spending and revenue trends continue.
That projection follows a period of unusually strong results. Wisconsin closed 2023 with a record $7.1 billion surplus and ended the most recent budget cycle with $4.4 billion remaining.
Some lawmakers have pointed to the experience of other states that have legalised sports betting. Virginia recently reported record November revenues, generating $14.3 million in tax payments. Ohio and South Dakota have also posted positive returns from their regulated markets.
For now, the bill remains in limbo as lawmakers weigh tribal sovereignty, industry economics, consumer protection, and the potential for new state revenue. With negotiations ongoing and no firm vote date set, Wisconsin’s sports-betting debate appears likely to extend into the next legislative session.
