Massachusetts Casino Operators Challenge Historical Horse Racing Proposal at Former Tracks

Wynn Resorts, MGM, and Penn Entertainment have joined forces to oppose a plan that would place historical horse racing machines at sites including Suffolk Downs and Raynham Park, and the operators argue these devices would duplicate slot-style gambling while operating under older track-betting regulations. The proposal, backed by developer Richard Fields, forms part of broader discussions on an economic development bill that state lawmakers may address during a lame-duck session following the November 2026 elections. Studies commissioned by the three casino companies project annual state tax revenue losses between $45 million and $73 million if the machines receive approval, and those same analyses forecast hundreds of job reductions across existing casino properties because of revenue shifts. Observers note that the operators frame the machines as direct competitors that would draw players away from regulated casinos without creating new economic activity.

Competing Revenue and Employment Projections

Richard Fields has presented a separate forecast that anticipates $120 million in fresh tax collections along with 1,200 new positions by the third year of operation, and his figures emphasize job creation at the former racetrack locations plus expanded wagering options that fall under existing pari-mutuel statutes. The developer maintains these outcomes would supplement rather than subtract from current gaming totals, yet the casino operators counter that the overlap in player behavior would produce net declines instead.

Data from the September 2026 Gross Gaming Revenue report for state casinos shows continued reliance on slot and table game income at licensed facilities, and the operators have referenced those figures when warning that any diversion could trigger measurable drops in both taxes and employment. Lawmakers continue to weigh the two sets of estimates as they refine the economic development legislation.

Legislative Timeline and Ongoing Negotiations

Negotiations on the larger economic development package remain active, and the historical horse racing component has emerged as one of the more contested elements because it pits established casino interests against a new market entrant. The issue now appears headed for the lame-duck period after November 2026, when outgoing and returning legislators can address unfinished business before the new session convenes.

Both sides have submitted their research to legislative committees, and the operators' materials highlight potential payroll reductions at facilities operated by Wynn, MGM, and Penn while Fields' submission stresses construction-phase hiring plus ongoing roles at the redeveloped tracks. Those who have followed similar debates in other states observe that revenue cannibalization questions often surface whenever new gaming formats seek entry under older regulatory categories.

Stakeholder Positions and Bill Context

The three casino companies have coordinated their public statements on the proposal, and each has underscored the risk that machines resembling slots could erode the tax base built since the state's casino legalization. Fields and his team have responded by pointing to the machines' classification under track-betting rules, which they say allows limited deployment without reopening full casino licensing questions.

Because the dispute sits inside a larger economic development bill, amendments could still alter the language before any final vote, and the lame-duck window offers additional time for further studies or compromise language. Lawmakers have not yet scheduled a definitive vote on the gaming provisions, leaving the outcome dependent on how the competing projections are reconciled.

Conclusion

The disagreement between the casino operators and the developer continues to shape discussions around the economic development legislation, and both sets of forecasts remain on the table as the November 2026 lame-duck session approaches. Resolution will hinge on whether legislators accept the operators' warnings of revenue adn job losses or adopt the developer's outlook of added tax collections and employment gains at the former racetrack sites.