Wisconsin Pulls Online Sports Betting Proposal

A proposal to legalize online sports betting in Wisconsin through a tribal “hub-and-spoke” system was removed from the Assembly floor agenda Wednesday, postponing debate until the Legislature reconvenes in early 2026. Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August said the bill, Assembly Bill 601, had enough support to pass but was withdrawn after lawmakers raised new concerns in private caucus. The Senate is not scheduled to meet again before January.

“There’s really no rush on this,” August said at a press conference. He noted recent conversations with members highlighted issues that had not been fully examined. August circulated a memo earlier in the week urging colleagues to advance the bill as a way to keep sports betting revenue in Wisconsin, particularly as prediction markets grow nationally. The delay coincided with public comments from Dominic Ortiz, CEO of Potawatomi Casinos & Hotels, who said on The New Normal podcast that the proposal will be taken up during the next full legislative session. Ortiz supports the bill, calling it a “fair playing field” that unites Wisconsin tribes under a shared regulatory model.

“We’re about partnership, not ownership,” Ortiz said, contrasting the tribal approach with the Sports Betting Alliance (SBA), a coalition of national sportsbook operators pushing for a different market structure. “The clear indication from the SBA is if they can’t have their rules, they’re going to come in and burn down the market.”

 

Tribal Model at Center of Debate

Wisconsin already permits in-person sports betting at tribal casinos under compact amendments approved by Governor Tony Evers in 2021. Evers reiterated this week that tribal control remains “the ultimate goal” for sports wagering policy.

The current proposal would move the market online by establishing a system in which tribes act as “hubs” that host servers on their lands, allowing them to contract with commercial sportsbook operators. The approach mirrors the model used in Florida, where the Seminole Tribe operates Hard Rock Bet as the state’s sole online betting platform.

Wisconsin’s 11 tribes would need to revise their gaming compacts with the state, and the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs would have to approve the changes. Ortiz said major Wisconsin sports franchises, including the Milwaukee Bucks and Milwaukee Brewers, support the tribal-backed structure. Potawatomi has longstanding sponsorship ties with both teams. He also framed online expansion as a way to offset higher operating costs driven by inflation. “This is about maintaining revenue and ensuring long-term stability,” Ortiz said.

 

Opposition From National Operators

The Sports Betting Alliance supports legalizing online sports wagering but opposes the tribal framework in AB 601. In testimony to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Revenue, an SBA representative argued that operators would be required to turn over 60% of revenue to partner tribes under the proposed model, calling it unworkable. The group pointed to Michigan’s tribal-commercial partnership system as a more balanced approach.

Some Wisconsin lawmakers have also voiced concern about expanding gambling access. But others, including Sen. Howard Marklein, said the proposal would legalize activity that many residents already engage in through offshore sportsbooks. Ortiz and tribal leaders have grown increasingly vocal about national sportsbook operators’ interest in launching prediction markets—financial-style markets that allow bettors to trade contracts tied to sports outcomes. These products fall under federal commodities oversight rather than state gaming law, creating what tribes describe as a regulatory loophole.

“They have indicated and made public statements that they can and will operate prediction markets where sports betting is not legal,” Ortiz said. “Their clear intent is to have ownership of Wisconsin. They’re not here to be our partner.” Several states are challenging the legality of sports-related prediction markets, and Wisconsin’s Ho-Chunk Nation is among the tribes arguing they violate the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Regulators in multiple jurisdictions have also warned operators that offering such markets could jeopardize their licenses.

 

We’re about partnership, not ownership.

 

Next Steps

With the proposal off the calendar until January, lawmakers and tribal representatives will continue negotiating the bill’s specifics. August said he expects a vote early next year, but the delay sets up a wider political fight in 2026 over how Wisconsin should regulate online wagering—and who will control the market. If you'd like, I can also create a shorter version, add subheads, or adapt this for broadcast or newsletter formats.