EDITORIAL: We support legalizing sports gambling in Minnesota -- with limits

Apr. 20—Minnesota legislators once again are debating whether Minnesota should join the majority of states — 38 and counting — that allow sports betting.

Gambling, of course, already is legal in Minnesota. We buy lottery tickets at convenience stores. We play pull-tabs at our favorite bar or social club. We bet on horse racing at Canturbury Park. We play blackjack and poker at tribal casinos.

All of these gambling options have one thing in common: If you engage in them regularly, you're almost guaranteed to lose money. It's a mathematical near-certainty. Over the long haul, the house wins.

That's OK. Thrill-seekers routinely pay to sky-dive, climb mountains, ride roller-coasters, go zip-linging, ski black-diamond slopes or go hunting in grizzly bear country. Modern day-to-day life doesn't provide enough opportunities for an adrenaline rush, so it's natural to seek excitement. Some people get that rush by watching their favorite sports team — and others get that rush by betting on those games.

Full disclosure: The PB editorial board isn't populated with gamblers. If we had our way, sports would be enjoyed strictly for the competition, for the thrill of seeing athletes showcase their skills.

That cat, however, got out of the bag a long time ago, and Minnesota can't simply ignore the reality of what's happening in neighboring states and across the entire country. People want to bet on sports, and a lot of them want to be able to do it on their phones, while sitting on their couches in front of their TVs.

It's time for Minnesota to get in on the action — but that doesn't mean we have to go all-in on sports betting. Given the choice between plunging in or dangling our feet in the pool, we prefer the latter option.

What would that mean?

One major area of contention concerns betting on collegiate sports. Sen. John Marty, a DFLer from Roseville, met with our editorial board early this month and voiced his concerns about the risks involved in legal wagering on amateur sports. He's proposed a sports wagering bill that would prohibit betting on college games, and while we admit that such a rule would cost the state some revenue, we like this idea.

Professional sports would offer plenty of wagering opportunities, and the last thing we want to worry about is a 19-year-old kid missing a meaningless three-pointer at the end of a college basketball blowout — and thus incurring the wrath of gamblers because the Gophers failed to cover the spread.

We also support limits on how much Minnesota gamblers could risk when they place their wagers. Sports books — whether online or brick-and-mortar sites — should not allow any wagering via a credit card, and we'd support a daily "cap" on how much a gambler could wager and lose on a gambling platform. (Marty proposes a $500 daily loss limit, and $3,000 per month.) Sure, a determined bettor would probably find a workaround or use multiple wagering platforms, but such limits could prevent some inexperienced gamblers from getting into trouble as they test the waters.

And finally, we support Marty's proposal to place a few reasonable restrictions on how sports books promote their offerings, especially online. They should not be able to target audiences under the age of 21, nor deduct the cost of offering free promotional bets to reduce their taxable profits. We also support a prohibition on targeted "push notifications" to people who have have used their site. Legalized sports wagering shouldn't mean Twins fans' phones will blow up with invitations to bet on tonight's game.

But people should be able place bets on their phones. While Marty isn't thrilled at that prospect, he seems resigned to it — and so are we. While some legislators (and gambling opponents) would prefer to restrict sports wagering to tribal casinos, that's not what people want. One of the reasons Minnesota is considering legalized sports wagering is to keep the money in-state, rather than sending it to Wisconsin, Iowa — or Las Vegas. Any proposal that requires Minnesota gamblers to go to a casino to bet on the Vikings-Packers game would be a wasted effort.

That's not to say we agree with everything Marty has proposed. He would ban so-called "prop bets" once a game has started, but such wagers are tremendously popular. If a fan wants to wager on how many points the Timberwolves will score in the third quarter, or whether Kirill Kaprizov will score a goal in the second period of the Wild-Bruins game, we see no reason to prevent them from doing so.

But one area where we strongly agree with Marty is his push for a higher tax on the revenue earned by sports books. He's asking for the state to get 40% (other proposals seek just 10-20%), with half of that revenue earmarked for gambling treatment programs and the Minnesota branch of the National Council on Problem Gambling. Another one-fourth of the revenue would be funneled to the Department of Education to develop addiction prevention programs and mental health services in public schools.

Will that much money be needed to prevent gambling addiction, or to help those who already are addicted? It's impossible to say, but we'd prefer to err on the side of caution. Better to have too much help available when the gambling floodgates open.

Indeed, that's the message that resonates throughout Marty's proposal. Minnesota should allow sports wagering, but it should also help gamblers find their limits and tap the brakes as necessary. It's much better for Minnesota to begin slowly, then loosen the safeguards later, than it is start too fast and try to fix the resulting problems on the fly.

In gambling terms, that latter strategy is called "chasing your losses," and it's seldom a winning formula.