A City Council majority on Wednesday accused Bally’s of using the ongoing battle over video gambling terminals in Chicago as an excuse to slow down construction of a $1.7 billion casino and entertainment complex in River West that they contend Bally’s can no longer afford to build.
The letter to Bally’s was signed by 28 members of the renegade coalition that rejected Mayor Brandon Johnson’s corporate head tax and muscled through an alternative 2026 budget. That spending plan lifted the Chicago ban on video gambling, and assumed the city would generate $6.8 million by licensing newly legalized video gambling terminals.
It claims the company’s unilateral decision to pause construction of “all non-gaming elements” of the casino complex — including the hotel, event center and some restaurants — is a violation of the company’s host agreement with the city.
The letter demands that Johnson enforce the agreement and ensure that Bally’s “delivers the complete project it committed to build.”
If Johnson refuses, the City Council majority says it will do it for him — by summoning Bally’s executives to a public hearing and perhaps filing a lawsuit against the gambling giant.
Legal action by the city would turn the tables on Bally’s, whose executives have threatened to sue the city and cancel its $4 million a year lump-sum payment to Chicago taxpayers in response to the City Council’s authorization of video gambling terminals, which Bally’s says violates the company’s host agreement.
“Final completion… expressly depends upon substantial completion of the hotel, retail, event space, exhibition space, greenspace, Riverwalk and other components — not merely the gaming floor,” the letter states.
“Continuing construction of the casino floor while slowing the hotel and other non-gaming portions does not eliminate those obligations” and constitutes a “material change” to the contract that requires City Council approval, the Council majority wrote.
Bally’s responded with a statement saying it understands its host agreement obligations and is ready to explain to the Council its reasons for slowing down the project.
“We have held up, and will hold up, our end of the bargain,” Bally’s stated. “We look forward to stating our case that VGTs will not benefit the City the way it has been represented, especially if their rollout will cause material detriment to our business.”
The $1.7 billion casino project has encountered financial and logistical challenges since Bally’s was selected to build Chicago’s casino in 2022, including an $800 million “funding gap,” changes to its hotel plans and delays that pushed the permanent casino’s expected opening into 2027.
Downtown Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd) said not a single video gambling license has been issued by the city, and there has been no impact on Bally’s bottom line.
“Many of us suspect that this is really a cash-flow issue for Bally’s and they’re trying to turn lemons into lemonade by blaming VGT as the reason they’re slowing down construction,” Reilly said. “They’ve told their own investors that they are heavily leveraged and have over $5 billion in debt, and that encumbrance could have a negative impact on their future operations.”
Ald. Anthony Beale (9th), who’s been leading the charge to legalize video gambling terminals, agreed with Reilly.
“We believe they don’t have the cash flow and they’re blaming VGTs that are not even operational in the city of Chicago,” Beale said. “We need to get to the bottom of what is really going on… If they cannot fulfill their obligation to the city, we need to be looking for another operator.”
Bally’s has warned repeatedly that lifting Chicago’s ban on video gambling would cost the city $74 million in annual revenue and up to 1,050 jobs at its temporary and permanent casinos.
The casino giant has further warned that lifting the ban would force the Johnson administration to renegotiate “critical elements” of its host agreement, wipe out a yearly $4 million lump-sum payment from Bally’s, and shrink the casino jackpot needed to save police and fire pension funds.
Johnson has raised strong objections to legalizing video gambling and lobbied alderpersons to repeal the authorization. But Reilly argued that Johnson has an obligation to enforce the host agreement.
“A deal’s a deal. They can’t play these games when taxpayers and police [officers] and firefighters are counting on these revenues to support their pensions. It’s cheap gamesmanship,” Reilly said.
Ald. Walter R. Burnett (27th), whose ward includes the permanent casino complex, said he’s frustrated by the slowdown, but believes Bally’s is operating within its legal rights.
“If you assume that your revenue is going to go down to nothing, you want to re-evaluate the cost before you have to commit everything to it,” Burnett said.
The mayor’s office had no immediate comment on the letter.