## Whats the Issue with Sporting Wagers in California?
California, with its vast population of 39.2 million, is the most populated state in the US. If it were a nation, it would hold the fifth-largest economy globally. The state is home to Silicon Valley, the gem of the modern global economy; boasts one of the world’s strongest university systems; and is home to Los Angeles, the second-largest city in the US. But it appears this prosperity won’t be flowing into sports wagering anytime soon, as the state’s sports betting proposals are likely to be rejected.
According to a survey by the Institute of Governmental Studies (IGS) at Berkeley, both ballot proposals are losing support. The tribal-led Proposition 26, which only permits in-person betting, has a 31% approval rating and a 42% disapproval rating. The business-led Proposition 27, which permits online betting, has a dismal 27% approval rating and a 52% disapproval rating.
“We’ll definitely endure, we’ll fight another day,” said Amy Howe, CEO of FanDuel, at G2E, acknowledging that Proposition 27 might fail.
The failure of sports betting in California would be a significant loss for the industry.
Nevertheless, this was not an unforeseen result.
It stemmed from a poorly conceived plan that fragmented the gaming sector, ignited a hostile advertising campaign, sullied sports betting in the eyes of the electorate, bewildered many, and ultimately failed to present a positive vision for its stance.
The defeat of Proposition 27 will be a consequence of deceptive propaganda that twisted its true aim and treated voters like naive individuals – a string of unnecessary blunders that will harm the sports betting industry for years to come.
The industry has a duty to contemplate some fundamental inquiries. What went awry? Why did this transpire? How can we improve in the future?
A Divided Group
At best, commercial betting operators faced a challenging battle against the tribes, and in California, it proved to be insurmountable.
“They have been cautioned,” Victor Rocha, chairman of the National Indian Gaming Association, stated to The Washington Post.
“This is an extraordinary event in gaming, similar to, you know: don’t gaze directly at the sun, look in both directions before crossing the street, don’t meddle with California tribes.”
What is truly disconcerting in the Berkeley IGS report is that voters exposed to more advertising were less likely to endorse either voting initiative.
The highly antagonistic nature of this campaign, especially in its concluding phases, resulted in this outcome – a logical consequence of an internal industry struggle. In total, industry participants invested $400 million in California solely to make voters more dubious about sports betting.
The fact that indigenous groups opposed Proposition 27 was not a secret and was something the industry had to take into account. The business-driven effort could have been structured to accommodate the interests of indigenous groups.
This is frequently the path to legalization in many states with substantial gambling tribes, where tribal access to the market constitutes a crucial component of the law. Even if the two sides couldn’t reach such an agreement, the failure to offer a conciliatory gesture led to indigenous groups pushing back with a strong and unified stance that operators couldn’t match.
Indigenous groups appeared to win the advertising battle, successfully portraying the commercial sector as a group of out-of-state corporate entities running a deceptive campaign. And, due to the emphasis on maintaining the current state of affairs, resources used to oppose Proposition 27 meant it was more difficult to simultaneously dedicate energy to promoting Proposition 26.
Furthermore, the messaging of indigenous groups against Proposition 27 wasn’t inaccurate.
End the Homeless Campaign
The California proposition, labeled “California Proposition 27, Legalize Sports Betting and Homeless Prevention Fund Initiative,” is a plan to make sports betting legal in California and use the earnings to finance a fund for preventing homelessness. While homelessness is a widespread issue in California, worsening the state’s escalating housing crisis, allocating sports betting income to tackle this problem is a praiseworthy objective. Nevertheless, Proposition 27 is not entirely the outcome of a campaign centered on addressing homelessness.
Numerous advertisements promoting Proposition 27 have been noticed to scarcely mention sports betting, instead concentrating solely on the homeless fund. The primary committee backing the ballot initiative – “The California Homeless and Mental Health Support Solutions Coalition, a group of housing and mental health specialists, concerned taxpayers, and digital sports entertainment and gaming companies” – suggests that this campaign is not entirely truthful.
Californians are capable of recognizing deceptive and dishonest messaging; they are practically experts in misinformation.
If operators desire to succeed in the future, they must ensure they can defend themselves based on the merits of sports betting, rather than concealing their true motives.
California sports betting: We’re back.
Operators have indicated their intention to attempt again in 2024 – their next opportunity.
This setback, though difficult, illuminates the path to future triumph. The loss highlighted that California’s Native American gaming operators are a formidable force, one that must be incorporated and included in any accord.
The second takeaway is to present a compelling argument for your cause, advocate from a positive perspective, and don’t shy away from its core. Individuals enjoy gambling, what’s the issue with that?
A group of tribal operators running an honest, optimistic, and positive campaign would be a very influential entity – that’s what they should strive for if the industry wishes to profit from sports betting in California.
Sign up for the iGaming newsletter.