This study examines the evolving landscape of tribal government owned and operated sports betting in the United States following the 2018 repeal of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA). Focusing on three states—New Mexico, North Dakota, and Washington—where tribal governments currently hold exclusivity over sports betting, this analysis provides a comparative analysis of regulatory frameworks, market conditions, and operational strategies. Employing the seven regulatory considerations outlined by Miller and Cabot—barriers to entry, market size, revenue potential, fan engagement, speed to market, effectiveness, and political viability—this research identifies patterns, challenges, and opportunities for tribally owned and operated entities within diverse legal and cultural contexts. Drawing on legislative texts, compacts, regulatory guidelines, and scholarly literature, the study highlights sports betting as an act of tribal sovereignty in the ways that tribal nations address regulatory complexities and adapt to evolving market conditions. The findings offer insights for policymakers, tribal leaders, industry stakeholders, and community advocates seeking to develop balanced and culturally aligned tribal sports betting models that respect tribal autonomy while fostering sustainable growth and integrity in this rapidly growing sector of the global gaming industry.
AkeeR. K.SpildeK. A.TaylorJ. B. (2015). The Indian gaming regulatory act and its effects on American Indian economic development. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3), 185–208.
AtonK. R. (2022). Tribal casinos and online gaming: Hurdles in modifying state charters to meet the digital era. UNLV Gaming Law Journal, 13(1), 109–134.
4.
AuxierR. C. (2019). States learn to bet on sports: The prospects and limitations of taxing legal sports gambling. Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.
5.
BlandJ. (2021). Gambling on video games: The global Esports betting market and the dawn of legalized Esports gambling in the United States. University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review, 29(2), 1–35.
6.
California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987).
7.
DwyerB.ShapiroS. L.DrayerJ. (2024). Fan conflict or complement? Exploring the intersection of sports betting and team loyalty. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 25(3), 482–498.
8.
DziokM. (2022). Sports law-sports gambling in a post-Murphy world: Ensuring emerging sports gambling laws adequately protect the integrity of college sports. Western New England Law Review, 44(2), 149–181.
9.
EdelmanM. (2018). Regulating sports gambling in the aftermath of Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association. George Mason Law Review, 26(2), 313–339.
10.
EgglA. (2022). Winning the right way—Why North Dakota should have a vested interest in legalizing sports gambling. North Dakota Law Review, 97(2), 245–269.
11.
GainsburyS.WoodR. (2011). Internet gambling policy in critical comparative perspective: The effectiveness of existing regulatory frameworks. International Gambling Studies, 11(3), 309–323.
12.
GrahamM. (2021). All bets are on!. . . line: The varied regulatory framework of an interconnected online sports betting system. Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, 50(3), 720–747.
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2721 (1988).
17.
KingM. A. (2020). Murphy v. NCAA and legalization of sports betting in states and Indian country. The Judges’ Journal, 59(2), 16–21.
18.
LightS. A.RandK. R. (2022). New markets for tribal sports betting: The outlook in California. Gaming Law Review, 27(1), 3–11.
19.
Lopez-GonzalezH.GriffithsM. D. (2017). “Cashing out” in sports betting: Implications for problem gambling and regulation. Gaming Law Review, 21(4), 323–326.
MastromartinoB. (2024). Attitudes, perceptions, and intentions toward sports betting legalization: A cluster analysis of California residents. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure, and Events. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/19407963.2024.2426995
22.
MastromartinoB.NaraineM. L.WearH. (2025). The nexus of sports fandom and sports wagering: A scoping review. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal, 29(1), 75–100.
23.
MaynardH. (2019). What are the odds? The potential for tribal control of sports gambling after Murphy v. NCAA. American Indian Law Review, 44(1), 141–162.
24.
McNeil StaudenmaierH.DiazP. (2021). What’s in the cards for tribal sports betting in 2021 and beyond?Gaming Law Review, 25(7), 288–293.
25.
MillerK. C.CabotA. N. (2018). Regulatory models for sports wagering: The debate between state vs. federal oversight. UNLV Gaming Law Journal, 8(2), 153–183.
PhilanderK. S. (2024). Are out-of-state players the target market? A geospatial analysis of the gambling export strategy in the United States. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 65(3), 294–303.
RandK. R.LightS. A. (2019). Sports betting and Indian gaming: Should tribal casinos get in the game?UNLV Gaming Law Journal, 9(1), 55–75.
32.
RandK. R.LightS. A. (2022). What tribal sports betting looks like now [White paper]. International Center for Gaming Regulation, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. https://www.unlv.edu/icgr/white-papers
33.
RandK. R.LightS. A. (2023). Tribal sports betting: Three models of legalization. Gaming Law Review, 27(2), 55–64.
34.
Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians v. Schwarzenegger, 602 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2010).
35.
SheranR. J. (2021). Is official league data a safe bet: Benefits and concerns with requiring sportsbooks to purchase league data feeds. Seton Hall Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, 45(3), 843–876.
SpildeK.TaylorJ. B. (2013). Economic evidence on the effects of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act on Indians and non-Indians. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal, 17(1), 13–30.
