Bally’s reports higher revenue as Chicago alderman questions company’s financial future

CHICAGO - Bally’s reported $792.2 million in revenue for the quarter ending June 30, up from $657.5 million during the same period last year.

Bally's releases earnings report

What we know:

The company’s Casinos & Resorts segment generated $401 million in revenue, up 2% year over year. Bally’s said the temporary Chicago casino was among the properties contributing to the growth. But the company still reported a $163.98 million net loss, with $146.1 million attributable to Bally’s for the quarter.

For the first six months of 2026, Bally’s reported a net loss of roughly $308 million. The company's financial position remains a major concern. Bally’s had about $4.5 billion in debt as of June 30 and reported roughly $265.9 million in negative operating cash flow during the first six months of the year.

The company also recorded nearly $229 million in net interest expense during the first half of 2026.

Bally’s says it is pursuing additional financing and asset monetization efforts and disclosed substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern without successfully completing those efforts.

Those financial numbers are drawing attention at City Hall. Alderman Brian Hopkins, 2nd Ward, was one of 27 Chicago aldermen who signed a letter urging Bally’s to resume construction activity on its permanent casino project. Hopkins said city council has not yet received a response from the company.

"I think they're probably looking ahead to litigation," Hopkins said.

Hopkins said there is a lot of money at stake for both Bally’s and Chicago taxpayers. He argues the city needs the casino to succeed because Chicago is counting on gaming tax revenue to help address its underfunded pension systems. But Hopkins said the temporary casino has "been underperforming expectations by a pretty significant margin." He said Bally’s is facing increasing financial pressure and that the company’s future is uncertain.

"The future for Bally’s right now is very much in question as a company," Hopkins said.

Hopkins also revisited his opposition to Bally’s when the city was selecting an operator for the Chicago casino. He said his primary concern was Bally’s lack of experience managing a multibillion-dollar casino and development project.

According to Hopkins, the Bally’s name had a long history in Chicago and the gaming industry, but he said the company that acquired the brand did not have the same track record of managing major casino and hotel developments. His concern at the time, Hopkins said, was that Bally’s was "way out over their skis" and might not be able to follow through on the commitments made in the city's host agreement. 

Hopkins also criticized the casino's location at the former Tribune Publishing site. He called the location one of the worst options considered for a land-based Chicago casino and said the city had one opportunity to get the location right.

"After all these years waiting for a land-based casino in Chicago, we had one chance to get it right with the location, and I think we got it wrong," Hopkins said.

Despite those concerns, Bally’s says construction on the permanent Chicago casino is continuing. The company is now targeting an early 2027 opening. Bally’s says it remains committed to completing the project and continues to work with Gaming and Leisure Properties on construction financing. 

The company has previously estimated the Chicago development at roughly $1.7 billion. The project is planned to include the permanent casino, hotel, restaurants, entertainment and other amenities.

The pension connection:

For Chicago, the stakes go beyond the casino itself. Hopkins said the project was pitched in part as a way to generate additional revenue for the city's pension systems. Chicago collects gaming tax revenue from casino activity, meaning the city's financial benefit depends heavily on the casino generating the level of gaming revenue originally anticipated. Hopkins said all of Chicago's pension funds are underfunded and need additional sources of revenue.

"This project was sold to the voters in Chicago as a potential solution — not a total solution, but at least a partial solution — to our pension underfunding problem," Hopkins said.

But he said the temporary casino's performance has not met expectations.

"The amount of money that it's capable of contributing to reduce the pension liability just isn't living up to what was promised," Hopkins said.

Despite his criticism of the company and its selection, Hopkins said he wants Bally’s to succeed. He said Chicago is now financially tied to the casino operator.

"Despite my opposition to Bally’s, you know, we're now tied to them," Hopkins said. "Their success is our success."

Hopkins said he is concerned about the possibility of Bally’s selling its interests, merging with another company or otherwise changing its corporate structure. He said any major change involving Bally’s could have a direct impact on the Chicago casino.

What we don't know:

The biggest unanswered question is how Bally’s will address its financial challenges. The company says it is pursuing asset monetization, equity financing and additional debt financing. But Bally’s also acknowledges there is no guarantee those transactions will be completed.

 It is also unclear whether the company's financial challenges will affect the timeline or cost of the permanent Chicago casino.

And while Bally’s says the temporary Chicago casino is showing growth, Hopkins argues its performance remains well below what was expected when the project was approved.

What's next:

The city is counting on the casino to generate tax revenue, including money intended to help address its pension obligations.

But with Bally’s carrying billions of dollars in debt and warning about its financial position, the company's ability to finish the project — and ultimately deliver the revenue Chicago was promised — is facing renewed scrutiny.

ChicagoNews