California’s “YES Pledge” Sparks Tribal Backlash in Online Sports Betting Debate
California’s long-running battle over online sports betting took a fresh turn with the quiet emergence of a new pledge aimed at tribal-led legalization, and an immediate rebuke from the state’s most powerful tribal gaming association. The document, titled “YES Pledge: Support for Online Sports Betting in California,” has become a flashpoint between commercial sportsbooks and tribal leaders just three years after voters rejected a commercial-backed mobile betting measure.
The Pledge and Its Goals
According to its authors, the YES Pledge is designed to encourage tribes to work together to secure voter or legislative approval for a tribally governed framework for online sports betting.
Drafted within the Sports Betting Alliance’s Tribal Advisory Council, whose membership is tied to major operators like bet365, BetMGM, DraftKings, Fanatics Sportsbook and FanDuel, the document lays out “core commitments” emphasizing cooperation with CNIGA, SBA, lawmakers and industry experts to craft a legalization plan.
Supporters say the pledge grew out of eight regional tribal meetings held across California and stress that operators had no input in its drafting.
Jeff Grubbe, former chair of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and a member of the SBA council, described the pledge as an urgent response to stalled efforts, arguing that it highlights sovereignty, equitable revenue sharing and benefits for all tribes.
CNIGA’s Swift Rejection and the Broader Context
The California Nations Indian Gaming Association (CNIGA), the largest tribal gaming group in the state, moved quickly to distance itself. In a statement it labeled the pledge a “corporate-driven maneuver” that could confuse tribal leaders and the public alike, and underscored that it did not originate, endorse or support the document.
CNIGA reiterated that tribal sovereignty must remain paramount and that any online betting framework must be tribally driven and transparent, not dictated by outside corporate interests. This clash revives tensions that flared in 2022, when tribes spent tens of millions of dollars to defeat Proposition 27, a commercial-backed mobile sports betting initiative.
While CNIGA Chair James Siva has said Indian Country will not pursue a new initiative in 2026, backers of the pledge hope it will prepare the ground for a potential 2028 push.
At stake are issues of branding and market control: commercial operators want their names front-facing, while tribes insist that, if allowed at all, those brands remain behind the scenes as management-service providers.
California’s constitution gives tribes exclusive rights to gaming, meaning commercial sportsbooks cannot enter the state without tribal partnerships.
Recommended