Operators and Mashpee Wampanoag oppose HHR terminals in Massachusetts
Operators and tribe warn of weak oversight and risks to tribal sovereignty after July approval
Key Takeaways
- The Massachusetts House approved in July a measure to authorize HHR terminals at Suffolk Downs and Raynham Park.
- Developer Richard Fields says the Suffolk Downs plan could create 1,200 jobs and attract hundreds of millions of dollars in investment.
- Supporters estimate the terminals could deliver more than US$100m annually to the Health Safety Net Trust Fund.
- The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and regulated casinos — Encore Boston Harbor, MGM Springfield and Plainridge Park Casino — oppose the plan over oversight and sovereignty concerns.
The Massachusetts House of Representatives approved in July a bill to authorize historical horse racing terminals at Suffolk Downs and Raynham Park, a move that has drawn opposition from casino operators and the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe. Developer Richard Fields supports the plan and says the Suffolk Downs project could create 1,200 jobs and attract “hundreds of millions of dollars” in construction and renovation investment.
What the plan proposes and who backs it
The text approved in July would allow installation of historical horse racing (HHR) terminals at the Suffolk Downs and Raynham Park venues. Proponents say the expansion could provide more than US$100m annually to the Massachusetts Health Safety Net Trust Fund, which finances health services for low-income residents. Richard Fields, the developer linked to the Suffolk Downs redevelopment, told The Boston Globe that the plan “could create 1,200 jobs and attract hundreds of millions of dollars in investment.”
Tribal and regulated-casino objections
The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, represented by its chair Brian Weeden, says the terminals resemble slot machines and that the measure could undermine tribal sovereignty by circumventing existing gaming rules. Weeden said:
“The Commonwealth is considering a proposal that would dramatically expand gaming without the protections and oversight that apply to everyone else.” — Brian Weeden, Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe
Encore Boston Harbor, MGM Springfield and Plainridge Park Casino also oppose the measure. Those operators argue that Massachusetts’s current limited-license system ensures accountability and encourages long-term investment, while HHR terminals would operate under a separate regulatory framework. The regulated operators have asked for greater oversight and consultation; some have voiced these concerns directly to lawmakers and regulators and to the public via statements and testimony. [regulated operators](/casino)
How HHR terminals work
Historical horse racing terminals determine outcomes using previously run races. The races are anonymized and wagers are executed through pari‑mutuel pools, but the machines’ design resembles traditional slot machines. That resemblance is central to critiques over whether HHR should be subject to comparable regulatory requirements.
Outstanding issues
Opponents are calling for increased oversight and stakeholder consultation before implementing the terminals. Supporters maintain the economic estimates — US$100m per year for the health fund and 1,200 jobs at Suffolk Downs — as justification to move forward. The debate continues in Massachusetts’s legislative and regulatory arenas; meanwhile, regulated operators and the tribe urge that existing protections not be weakened.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a historical horse racing terminal and how does it determine results?
A historical horse racing terminal uses the outcomes of previously run races to determine payouts. The races are anonymized and wagers are settled through pari‑mutuel pools, though the machines’ appearance resembles slot machines.
When did the Massachusetts House approve the measure for HHR?
The Massachusetts House of Representatives approved the measure in July, opening the path to authorize terminals at Suffolk Downs and Raynham Park.
What economic benefits do proponents project?
Supporters estimate more than US$100m per year for the Health Safety Net Trust Fund, and Richard Fields projects 1,200 jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in construction and renovation investment at Suffolk Downs.
Why do the tribe and regulated casinos oppose the proposal?
The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and regulated operators contend the terminals resemble slot machines and could operate outside the existing regulatory framework, which they say would weaken oversight, accountability and tribal sovereignty.
Tags
About the author
Miguel Sandoval
Regulatory Affairs Correspondent
Miguel Sandoval tracks gambling legislation, licensing, and regulator enforcement — from Spain's DGOJ and the Latin American authorities to the UKGC, the MGA, and the state-by-state map in North America. The reports answer three questions precisely — what changed, where, and who it affects — with jurisdictions, dates, and penalties cited exactly as published. Operators and compliance officers read Miguel Sandoval to know which rulebook moved before their next meeting.
More from Miguel Sandoval
