March 13,2001 

Joseph M. Speck 

Nic-A-Bob Productions 

5025 Southern Eastern Avenue, #439 

Las Vegas, NV 89 1 19 

Re: WIN Sports Betting Game 

Dear Mr. Speck: 

This letter responds to your inquiry as to whether the National Indian Gaming 

Commission regards the game "WIN" as a Class I1 or Class I11 game under the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) for play in Arizona and California. We reviewed the 

information you provided and conclude that the game, as discussed below, does not meet 

any of the Class I1 gaming definitions, and consequently is a Class I11 game. 

Furthermore, because sports betting is unlawfbl in Arizona and California, (as well as 

most other states), and because the use of the Internet is not authorized by IGRA, tribes in 

Arizona and California may not lawfully operate WIN pursuant to the IGRA. 

As described in the mate~ials you submitted, WIN is a sports betting game. The game 

may be played via the Intlernet in the future, but is currently available for play only in a 

casino sports book facility. In playing the game, players compete against other players in 

different slots. A slot corlsists of a certain set number of players and has a wager limit. 

For instance, Slot-A conta.ins 10 players, Slot-B contains 20 players, etc. The maximum 

wager for Slot -A is $10.00, for Slot-B $20.00, and so on. When a slot reaches capacity, 

players who choose that slot are offered the next available slot. Players may wager on all 

manner of sporting events, including NFL Football, Baseball, Golf and the Olympics. 

The Indian Gaming Regu~latory Act (IGRA) governs gambling on Indian lands. The 

IGRA identifies certain specific forms of gambling as Class 11, and therefore subject to 

regulation by tribes and the NIGC. Those forms of gambling are as follows: 

(i) The game of chance commonly known as bingo (whether or not electronic, 

computer, or other technologic aids are used in connection therewith) - 

(I) Which is played for prizes, including monetary prizes, with cards 

bearing numbers or other designations, 

(11) In which the holder of the card governs such numbers or 

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 1441 L St. N\N Suite 9100. Washington. DC 20005 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 202.632.7066 www.NlGC.GOV 

REGIONAL OFFICE5 Portland. OR; Sacramento. CA; Phoenix. AZ; S1. Paul. MN; Tulsa. OK 
Joseph M. Speck 

March 1 3,2001 

Page 2 

designations when objects, similarly numbered or designated, are 

drawn or electronically determined, and 

(111) In which the game is won by the first person covering a previously 

designated arrangement of numbers or designations on such cards, 

including (if played in the same location) pull-tabs, lotto, punch 

boards, tip jars, instant bingo, and other games similar to bingo, 

ancl 

(ii) Card games that - 

(I) Are explicitly authorized by the laws of the State, or 

(11) Art: not explicitly prohibited by the laws of the State and are 

pla,yed in conformity with those laws and regulations (if any) of 

the State regarding hours or periods of operation of such card 

gannes or limitations on wagers or pot sizes in such card games. 

25 U.S.C. $2703 (7)(A). 

All other forms of gambling (except Class I gaming which consists of social games for 

prizes of minimal value and gaming by individuals in connection with tribal ceremonies, 

See 25 U.S.C. $ 2703(6) ixe considered Class I11 games and may be lawfilly played only 

pursuant to a Tribal-State compact. 25 U.S.C. $5 2703(8) and 2710(d). 

Because sports betting doles not fit into any of the specifically defined categories of Class 

I1 gaming set forth above, it is a Class I11 form of gaming. Therefore, it may be played 

only pursuant to a Tribal-State compact. 

Moreover, specific forms of gaming, including sports betting, are subject to compact only 

if located in a state that permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization 

or entity. 25 U.S.C. tj 2710(d)(l)(B). If sports betting is unlawfi~l in a state, it is 

unlawful for tribes in that state to engage in it. Sports betting is unlawfi.11 in most states, 

including Arizona and California. Statutes in both Arizona and California specifically 

prohibit this form of gam'bling. See ARIZ. REV. STAT. $ 13-3305(1989); CA. PENAL 

CODE $ 337a(1978). 

In addition to state statutes prohibiting sports betting, federal law makes it a crime to 

engage in the interstate transmission of information assisting in the placing of bets on a 

sporting event unless the transmission is between states or foreign countries where 
Joseph M. Speck 

March 13,2001 

Page 3 

betting on that sporting event is lawful. 18 U.S.C. tj 1084(2000). Those states that we 

are aware sports betting is lawful are Delaware, Montana, Nevada and Oregon. See DEL. 

CODE ANN. tit. 28 $ 1 101 (1 953); OR. REV. STAT. $ 1462.020(1999); MONT. CODE 

ANN. $23-5-405(1999); NEV. REV. STAT.tj463.01 O(1999). 

Furthermore, the IGRA does not authorize off-reservation gaming as contemplated in 

your submission. The use of the Internet, even though the computer server may be 

located on Indian lands, would constitute off-reservation gaming to the extent any of the 

players were located off of Indian lands. The Chairman of the NIGC stated this position 

in the enclosed letter dated June 22, 1999, to the Chairman of the Coeur d'Alene Tribe of 

Idaho. Moreover, the United States asserted this position as amicus curiae in related 

litigation in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A decision in that 

case is pending. Finally, WIN accessed via the Internet may run afoul of other laws 

outside the area of N1GC"s expertise. 

Both because sports betting is unlawful in Arizona and California, and because the use of 

the Internet for gambling purposes is not authorized by IGRA, we conclude that tribes in 

Arizona and California may not lawfiilly operate WIN. Furthermore, tribes in any state 

where sports betting is illlegal may not operate WIN. 

If you have any questions please contact Staff Attorney Maria Getoff at (202) 632-7003. 

Sincerely yours, 

Enclosure 
Ernest L. Stensgar, Chairman 

Coeur dYAlene Tribe 

Route 1 

Plumrner, Idaho 83 85 1 

Re: National Indian Lottery 

Dear Chairman St ensgar: 

The Coeur d7Alene Tribe (Tribe) is presently involved in litigation in the 9th Circuit Court 

of Appeals with respect to whether the National Indian Lottery (NIL), an internet gambling 

enterprise of the Tribe's, is legal. It has come to our attention that, in the course of this litigation, 

the Tribe has argued that the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC), by approval of the 

Tribe's management contract and a subsequent amendment, implicitly authorized the offreservation features of the NIL. It is the view of the NIGC that the Indian Gaming Regulatory 

Act (IGRA) does not authorize off-reservation gaming and, moreover, that the NIGC did not 

authorize such gaming when it (approved the Tribe's management contract and amendment. 

In a press release issued in March of 1995, Iess than two months after our approval of the 

management contract, we stateti: 

The National Incf an Gaming Commission did not approve a nationwide 

Indian lottery. The Commission did approve a management contract 

between the Coeur d'Alene Indian Tribe and Unistar. The Triie is well 

aware that there may be legal obstacles to its proposed lottery and that it 

must deal with other tribes and states on an individual basis." 

Accordingly, we did not intend by our approval of the contract to expressly or implicitly state that 

the off-reservation gambling colltemplated by the NIL was authorized by IGRA or legal under 

other applicable federal or state laws. The NIGC7s review of the management contract simply 

found that the contract complied with the management contract requirements of the IGRA and 

NIGC regulations. 

It is the position of the ETIGC that the tribal gaming actions of the NIL to the extent they 

involve off reservation gaming are not authorized by IGRA. Further, such actions may be subject 

to other federal or state laws. 

141 L m, NW. 9TH R(30CI WASHEIQTON, 0.C 20005 TEL: me-7003 FAX: 202-632-7066 
Finally, we concur in the opinion of the United States as more My articulated in its 

amicus curiae brief filed today in the 9th Circuit. 

Sincerely, 

Montie R Deer 

Chairman