What are the Odds? - The Policy & Politics of Sports Gambling in Minnesota

Until differing visions reconcile, the odds of any bill cashing at the Capitol remain long — even if everyone says they’re “for sports betting” in the abstract.

Minnesota will enter another year stuck in familiar territory on sports betting: lots of momentum, plenty of interest, and no deal. As 2025 winds down, Minnesota remains a sports-betting holdout — but not for lack of attempts.

Every session seems to bring a new headline about “another sports betting bill” at the Minnesota Capitol; but for most Minnesotans, the details blur together. HF 2000, SF 1949, SF 757, SB 3414 — what do these bills actually do, and how do they differ? AND what are the prospects of legalizing sports betting in the next legislative session?

How We Got Here: Legislation To-Date

The Stephenson–Klein framework: Tribal-first, mobile-heavy

The early blueprint came from Rep. Zack Stephenson (DFL) and Sen. Matt Klein (DFL). Their bills — HF 2000 and SF 1949 — would:

• Legalize sports betting on pro sports, college sports, esports, and other approved events for adults 21+.

• Grant up to 11 mobile operator licenses to tribal nations already running Class III casinos.

• Allow brick-and-mortar sportsbooks at tribal casinos.

• Prohibit wagers on horse racing and youth sports, and restrict certain bet types (like in-game wagering in some versions).

A Department of Revenue analyses projected that a sports betting net revenue tax could generate $30-40 million annually by FY2027, with dedicated streams for problem-gambling treatment, emergency services, and amateur sports programs.

Notably, this is a “tribal-first” model, where tribes hold the licenses, but can partner with big national platforms (FanDuel, DraftKings, etc.) for tech and branding.

Minnesota’s 11 federally-recognized tribes operate 19 casinos statewide and have long held exclusive rights to casino-style gambling. From this author’s perspective, as well as many policymakers and stakeholders, any deal that undercuts that exclusivity is a nonstarter.

Enter Republicans and DFL Variants

Republicans, led by Sen. Jeremy Miller, floated their own “Minnesota Sports Betting Act 2.0,” a framework that would also include horse racing tracks and potentially professional sports venues as partners.The goal: give tracks like Canterbury Park and Running Aces a piece of the action, arguing that their inclusion supports local jobs and racing purses.

In 2025, Klein returned with SF 757, again authorizing sports betting and fantasy contests, establishing licenses, and setting tax structures with money directed to amateur sports and other purposes. However, DFL Sen. Nick Frentz also introduced SB 3414, focused on mobile betting and DFS tied explicitly to federally-recognized tribes, requiring the governor to negotiate new compacts. (Note - DFS = “Daily Fantasy Sports” - contests where players assemble virtual lineups of real athletes and win or lose based on statistical performance over a single game or short window).

How These Bills Compare

Across these proposals, three tensions keep resurfacing:

1. Exclusivity vs. inclusion

   • Exclusive tribal control over mobile sports betting and brick-and-morter sportsbooks.

   • Inclusion of race tracks/sporting venues - some lawmakers want expanded licenses and/or a guaranteed revenue share.

2. How much regulation is enough?

   • Bills vary on whether to allow in-game betting, DFS, what consumer protections to require, and how much to spend on problem gambling services.

3. Who controls local rollout?

   • Several bills explicitly prohibit local governments from banning sports betting, prioritizing statewide uniformity.

Lawmakers: Bipartisan Support — and Bipartisan Opposition

On the pro-legalization side, key DFL figures like Stephenson, Klein, and Frentz have carried bills that center tribal control, while Republicans like Miller have argued for broader stakeholder inclusion through increased licensing.

Yet forceful opposition persists from DFL and Republican legislators alike. Lawmakers such as State Senators John Marty (DFL), Erin Maye Quade (DFL), and Steve Drazkowski (R) have raised alarms about addiction, predatory marketing, the experience of other states, and costs of entering the gambling market. Working with colleagues across the aisle, these legislators helped form a coalition to thwart Klein’s 2025 bill from advancing out of committee. Notably, these Democrats and Republicans share concerns about sports gambling generally and/or oppose the DFL-crafted frameworks on ideological or process grounds.

The result is a strange coalition map:

• Pro-legalization, tribal-first: many DFLers, tribal governments, some Republicans.

• Pro-legalization, broader-access: some Republicans, tracks, operators, and a few DFLers.

• Anti-expansion (or “not like this”): social conservatives, economic populists, and problem-gambling advocates in both parties.

Why it keeps failing

On paper, the differences look bridgeable. In practice, that has not been the case. Tribal leaders are understandably wary of any erosion of their gaming compacts. Race tracks and sporting venues argue they’re being frozen out. Anti-gambling lawmakers see the entire package as a step too far, regardless of who gets the licenses.

Complicating matters further is the strange set of political bedfellows the issue creates: staunch anti-gambling progressives often align with socially conservative Republicans, while pro-legalization votes are split between tribal-focused DFLers and market-expansion Republicans. This cross-cutting coalition map means no party can reliably deliver a unified bloc — making even a narrow path to a majority of votes in both chambers extraordinarily fragile.

Bottom line

Sports betting in Minnesota isn’t a simple blue vs. red fight. It’s a negotiation between tribal sovereignty, economic interests, public health concerns, and political risk.

When Minnesotans hear “sports betting bill,” they’re really hearing competing visions:

• Tribal-exclusive, mobile-led models.

• Multi-stakeholder models that include tracks and maybe stadiums.

Until those visions reconcile, and concerns over problem gambling are addressed, the odds of any bill cashing at the Capitol remain long — even if everyone says they’re “for sports betting” in the abstract.