Minnesota Sports Betting: Industry Excluded

Minneapolis, MN—In a state grappling with the prospect of legalizing sports betting since the repeal of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) in 2018, Senator John Marty took a controversial approach to the discussion during a January 8th hearing. By excluding industry representatives, Marty sparked criticism from proponents of legalization while focusing the conversation on the potential harms of gambling.
A Hearing Without Industry Voices

The state senate finance committee hearing marked a deliberate departure from past discussions. Senator Marty framed his decision to exclude the gambling industry as an effort to address the issue of harm—a topic he claimed had been overlooked in previous debates. Marty emphasized that while betting among friends or strangers is already legal in Minnesota, corporate sports bookmaking remains prohibited. He drew a stark comparison between gambling addiction and opioid addiction, labeling both as equally destructive.

 

The State Developments

Marty’s decision to focus solely on gambling’s societal costs drew sharp criticism from industry representatives. John Pappas, a spokesman for the IDevelopment and Economic Association (iDEA), expressed frustration, noting that requests to offer testimony were explicitly denied. “We’re interested in hearing about the harms, not the benefits,” Marty’s office reportedly told the group.

Gaming consultant Brendan Bussman and Brandt Iden, a former Michigan state representative and current Fanatics Betting & Gaming official, called the hearing a “media stunt,” criticizing it for its lack of balanced discourse.
Exclusion of Tribal and Industry Stakeholders

The exclusion of industry representatives extended to Minnesota’s sovereign tribal nations, which play a critical role in the state’s gambling landscape. The Sports Betting Alliance (SBA), which includes major players like DraftKings and FanDuel, also decried the lack of inclusion. SBA’s Minnesota spokesperson Blois Olson argued that the absence of diverse perspectives hindered productive debate.

Despite bipartisan support for legalization, the tribes’ role in any future legislation remains a contentious issue. With exclusivity over gambling operations in the state, tribal interests are key stakeholders, yet they were notably absent from the hearing.
A Polarized Landscape

The hearing took place as Minnesota lawmakers prepare for another round of legislative battles over sports betting. Senator Matt Klein and Representative Zack Stephenson have long championed legalization efforts, and Klein has promised to introduce a bill this session. Republican Senator Jeremy Miller has similarly pledged to push for a bipartisan solution. However, the state’s politically divided legislature—an evenly split Senate and a narrow Democratic-Farmer-Labor majority in the House—complicates the path forward.

Advocates argue that legalization could bring much-needed consumer protections and tax revenue. Critics counter that it may exacerbate gambling addiction and related social harms. Currently, illegal online sports betting thrives in Minnesota, with offshore operators providing unregulated access to residents.
The Harms of Gambling Take Center Stage

Anti-gambling advocates used the hearing to spotlight gambling addiction’s impact on individuals and communities. Testimony highlighted links between gambling addiction and issues like domestic violence, suicide, and financial instability. Les Bernal of Stop Predatory Gambling called legal gambling:

 

a highly fraudulent and manipulative financial scheme.

 

The Future

According to the National Council for Problem Gambling, approximately 1% of Americans suffer from severe gambling addiction, with another 2%-3% exhibiting moderate problems. Susan Sheridan Tucker, testifying on behalf of the Minnesota Alliance on Problem Gambling, echoed concerns about the societal costs of legal gambling.
Conclusion: A Divisive Start to 2025

Senator Marty’s hearing has intensified the debate over sports betting in Minnesota. While proponents of legalization criticize the exclusion of industry voices, Marty’s focus on the societal harms of gambling reflects a broader concern among skeptics. With bipartisan support and a politically divided legislature, the state’s path toward legal sports betting remains uncertain. The stakes are high, not just for policymakers, but for the Minnesotans whose lives and communities will be shaped by the outcome.