Massachusetts Casino Groups Push Back Against Historical Horse Racing Machines at Former Tracks
Written by Greta Neumann · Nov 5, 2026
Massachusetts Casino Groups Push Back Against Historical Horse Racing Machines at Former Tracks
Wynn Resorts, MGM, and Penn Entertainment have taken a stand against a proposal that would introduce historical horse racing machines at sites including Suffolk Downs and Raynham Park, and the operators argue these devices, which operate similarly to slots yet fall under track-betting regulations, would draw business away from existing casinos across the state.
The three companies commissioned separate studies that project annual state tax revenue losses ranging from $45 million to $73 million if the machines receive approval, and those same analyses estimate hundreds of job reductions at licensed casinos because of reduced visitor traffic and lower gaming volumes over time.
Details of the Proposed Expansion
Developer Richard Fields has advanced plans to place the machines at the two former race tracks, and his forecasts show the initiative could generate $120 million in fresh tax revenue for Massachusetts while creating 1,200 positions by the third year of operation.
Fields positions the machines as an economic boost for regions that once hosted live racing, and he frames the project as complementary rather than competitive with full-service casino resorts that already operate under different licensing structures.
Operators Present Their Case
The casino operators maintain that historical horse racing machines function in practice like slot machines and would therefore cannibalize revenue at their properties, and they point to the commissioned reports as evidence that net state collections would decline once the machines begin drawing players away from taxed casino floors.
Those studies examine market overlap, player migration patterns, and projected drops in gross gaming revenue at the three major resort casinos, while they also calculate secondary effects on employment levels and local supplier contracts that support the existing facilities.
Data from the September 2026 Gross Gaming Revenue report shows continued reliance on casino taxes for state budgets, and the operators reference those figures when they warn that any shift in player spending could produce measurable shortfalls.
Legislative Context and Timeline
The disagreement forms part of broader negotiations around an economic development bill that lawmakers continue to shape, and observers note the horse racing machine provision has become a focal point that could determine whether the larger package advances before the end of the current session.
Negotiators have not yet reached agreement on the language, and the issue appears headed for consideration during the lame-duck period that follows the November 2026 elections, when legislators often address unfinished business before new terms begin.
Both sides have submitted their economic models to legislative committees, and staff members are reviewing teh competing projections to assess which assumptions about player behavior and tax collection hold up under scrutiny.
Competing Economic Projections
Fields' team emphasizes job creation and new tax streams that would flow from increased activity at the former tracks, while the casino operators highlight risks of revenue displacement that could erode the tax base already established by their resorts.
The studies commissioned by Wynn Resorts, MGM, and Penn Entertainment include sensitivity analyses that test different levels of market cannibalization, and they conclude even moderate overlap would produce the cited losses in state revenue and employment.
Fields counters that the machines would attract a distinct customer segment, particularly in areas without convenient access to full casinos, and he argues the added activity would expand the overall gaming economy rather than simply redistribute existing play.
Next Steps in the Process
Lawmakers face the task of reconciling the divergent forecasts before any final vote, and committee hearings scheduled before the lame-duck session will give both the operators and the developer additional opportunities to present data and respond to questions.
The outcome will influence how Massachusetts balances expansion of gaming options against protection of revenue streams that currently support state programs, and the decision will also set precedent for similar proposals that may surface in other jurisdictions.
Conclusion
The dispute centers on differing assessments of how historical horse racing machines would affect Massachusetts tax collections and employment, with the casino operators citing potential losses and the developer projecting gains, while the matter remains unresolved within the economic development bill negotiations that continue toward the post-election lame-duck period.