The Minnesota Model Minnesota provides a model for tribal gaming with meaningful growth potential
By Chris Irwin
Minnesota ’ s casino gaming landscape is defined exclusively by tribal gaming operations , regulated through compacts between the state and sovereign tribal nations .
A vital component of the state ’ s overall economy , this structure reflects both the state ’ s respect for tribal sovereignty and the critical role tribal gaming plays in supporting economic development and self-determination for Minnesota ’ s Native American communities . In this article , The Innovation Group provides historical context for both tribal nations and gaming in the state , outlines and examines current gaming segments , explores the opportunities and challenges around the introduction of sports wagering , and illustrates the overall market potential .
Minnesota ’ s Tribal Nations
Minnesota gaming cannot be understood without first recognizing the rich history and ongoing presence of the state ’ s 11 federally recognized tribal nations .
The Dakota people , Minnesota ’ s first inhabitants , have lived in the region since time immemorial , with their traditional territories spanning much of what is now southern and central Minnesota . The Ojibwe people began arriving in the region in the 1700s , gradually establishing communities across northern Minnesota ’ s forests and lakes region .
Today , Minnesota ’ s tribal nations include seven Ojibwe bands ( Bois Forte , Fond du Lac , Grand Portage , Leech Lake , Mille Lacs , Red Lake , and White Earth ) and four Dakota communities ( Lower Sioux , Prairie Island , Shakopee Mdewakanton , and Upper Sioux ). Despite their distinct histories and traditions , these nations have found common ground in their approach to economic development , particularly through gaming operations .
The Minnesota Indian Gaming Association ( MIGA ) serves as a unified voice on gaming matters for most of these nations , demonstrating how historical rivals have evolved into powerful modern allies in pursuit of economic self-sufficiency .
The tribes ’ gaming operations reflect their diverse geographical and economic circumstances . Some nations , particularly those near the Twin Cities metropolitan area , have developed world-class gaming and entertainment destinations that generate substantial revenues for tribal programs .
Others , especially those in more remote locations , operate smaller facilities that , while more modest in scale , play crucial roles in providing employment and supporting essential tribal services . This diversity in scale and scope demonstrates both the opportunities and challenges facing tribal gaming in Minnesota .
History of Gaming in Minnesota
Minnesota ’ s relationship with regulated gaming evolved through distinct phases , from early charitable gambling to today ’ s sophisticated tribal gaming
Source : The Innovation Group
operations . The state first entered the gaming sector in 1945 by legalizing charitable gambling , allowing organizations to raise funds through bingo and raffles . In 1981 , pull-tabs were introduced , laying the groundwork for what would become one of the nation ’ s largest charitable gaming markets .
The most significant transformation in Minnesota gaming began with the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ( IGRA ) of 1988 . Unlike many states that initially resisted tribal gaming expansion , Minnesota moved quickly to embrace the opportunity , becoming one of the first states to negotiate tribal-state compacts . By 1991 , all 11 tribal nations in Minnesota had secured compacts allowing them to conduct both Class II and Class III gaming operations .
Minnesota ’ s approach to these compacts proved uniquely beneficial to tribal economic development . Unlike many other states that demand moderate to significant revenue sharing , Minnesota ’ s compacts only require tribes to cover the costs of regulatory oversight . This arrangement allows tribes to retain 100 percent of their gaming revenue — a crucial factor that enables tribes to reinvest in their operations and communities , and that contributes to the market ’ s internal sustainability and external competitiveness to this day .
This compact structure also has proven particularly important for smaller operations that might not have remained viable under a revenuesharing requirement .
26 TRIBAL GOVERNMENT GAMING 2025