At the latest Senate hearing for Bill SB757 on February 13, 2025, the Minnesota sports betting industry received a massive blow to its bid to become legalized. The Bill failed to rally sufficient support, ending in a 6 – 6 deadlock, and leaving no clear way forward.Legal Sports Betting in Minnesota Looks Unlikely Any Time Soon
The last hearing marked the fifth consecutive session where Minnesota lawmakers attempted to legalize sports betting. As the dust settles on another failed attempt, the state’s sportsbook industry faces another struggle. Does it put in one last rallying effort, or watch as its potential bettors flock to neighboring states with more friendly gambling regulations?Legal Sports Betting in Minnesota Looks Unlikely Any Time Soon
On February 13,2025, The Senate Committee on Government and Local Affairs debated Senate Bill 757, which seeks to legalize sports betting in Minnesota. After intense discussions on the subject, the Committee ended its hearing with a deadlock vote – a standoff which felt more like a heavy defeat for the Bill’s proposers.Legal Sports Betting in Minnesota Looks Unlikely Any Time Soon
Senator Matt Klein, the main supporter and initiator of SB 757 had presented it as a complete solution to the hotly-contested subject of legal sports betting. In his proposal, 11 sports betting licenses would be tied to the state’s tribal partners, and 45% of tax revenue from those legal sportsbooks would subsequently be set aside for charitable causes.
An extra 15% of revenue was budgeted to support the state’s horse racing tracks in a measure intended to address past concerns and provide for broader community benefits. However, Klein’s efforts were not sufficient, as his proposals met with fierce and well-coordinated resistance.
Matt Klein faced a barrage of questions from lawmakers and industry experts alike for the entire duration of the hearing. The growing skepticism over issues like gambling addiction, how affordable the market entry was, and the inclusion of betting on college sports betting proved the biggest takeaways from his testimony.
Critics also had a thing or two to say about some of the Bill’s provisions, especially those related to licensing fees and revenue splits. They argued that these provisions were too complex, and would favor the bigger sportsbook brands at the expense of smaller operators.
While lending her voice to the debate, Senator Erin Maye Quade spoke strongly against legalizing betting on college sports, and described in-play betting as “the most predatory” form of gambling.
She moved for college sports and in-play betting to be removed entirely from the legal framework, sparking further debate. Meanwhile, industry advocates claimed that any restrictions would push bettors toward illegal offshore sportsbooks. That in addition to the loss of revenue and lower handle.
In his submission, Senator Steve Drazkowski challenged Klein on his proposed licensing fees ($250,000 for the initial application and $83,000 for annual renewal). Drazkowski warned that such fees could create significant barriers to entry, and only open the doors to the largest sportsbook brands.
There are some holes in his defense, though. To provide some context, states like Pennsylvania, New York, and Illinois pay over $1 million in application fees between them. There is a $25 million application fee in New York, while any operator that wants to apply for an online sports betting platform in Illinois must cough up $20 million.
Nonetheless, Drazkowski insisted that Minnesota’s fees could still discourage competition if not calibrated properly. He also faulted a controversial provision in Klein’s Bill that aimed to penalize harassment of athletes concerning their personal betting activities. While describing it as an “anticipation of creating new crimes,” he argued that it would only serve to compound the state’s existing regulatory burdens.
In a dramatic turn, Senator John Marty, known for his opposition to gambling expansion, tabled a second proposal. He argued that his own Bill offered far more consumer protections than Klein’s, with its provisions calling for a stricter approach to advertising. For example, while Klein’s bill allowed the display of gambling advertisements at events where at least 10% of the audience was under 21, Marty proposed banning all advertising at events where 30% or more of attendees were minors.
He further pushed for banning gambling advertising in public buildings, based on the premise that Minnesota’s professional sports stadiums are state-owned. Amidst the debate, the implications for Minnesota loom large.
Minnesota is surrounded by regions where sports betting is legal, including four US states and one Canadian province. There are growing concerns that the current situation may force Minnesota residents toward illegal betting markets. Not only would this create an additional regulatory problem, it would ultimately cost the state valuable tax revenue.
The committee hearing of SB 757 on February 13 marked yet another chapter in the ensuing struggle to legalize sports betting in Minnesota. The biggest concern is that the ongoing deadlock leaves residents of the state without any regulated sports betting options. As the debate continues, Minnesota also risks falling further behind neighboring states which have already embraced legal sports betting.
