Blog

Jay-Z’s gamble on a Caesars Palace in Times Square crapped out. Billionaire Steve Cohen’s bid for a casino in Queens could be a winner. Meet the four high-rolling developers vying for three spots.

Over the last three years, many of the gambling industry’s biggest companies, from Wynn Resorts to Las Vegas Sands to Caesars, have fought to get a license to open a casino in New York City, which has never had one before. Now, there are just four contenders remaining and only three licenses available, each promising billions of revenue over the next decade.

With the New York State Gaming Commission expecting to make its selection by December 1, and grant licenses by the end of the year, the last leg of the race is on. Many political and industry insiders believe the two existing racinos near Manhattan have a tremendous advantage as they have already been operating and adding to the state’s coffers for years. Resorts World New York in Jamaica, Queens, which is accessible from the subway and owned by billionaire Lim Kok Thay’s Resorts World Genting, and MGM’s Empire City racino in Yonkers, operate racetracks and video slot machines, but currently have no live table games such as blackjack or roulette. Not only can these properties flip to full Las Vegas-style casinos quickly, but the businesses would be crushed if they weren’t granted a casino license.

The two other proposed projects include Bally’s Bronx, which would sit next to what was recently a golf course owned by Donald Trump in Ferry Point, called Trump Links. It is now known as Bally Links, after the company bought the lease from the Trump Organization in 2023 for $6o million. Should Bally’s be awarded one of the three licenses Trump would receive an additional $115 million payment. The final active proposal is Metropolitan Park, which is backed by billionaire New York Mets owner Steve Cohen and Hard Rock Casino and would be located next to Citi Field in Flushing, Queens.

New York State Gaming Commission chairman Brian O’Dwyer has said multiple times over the last few years that there are no favorites, and each proposal is being fully considered. During a state gaming commission meeting in late September, O’Dwyer stressed again that no candidates have an advantage.

“Like I said before, this is a tabula rasa. There are no front-runners or favorites, and unfortunately, we’re already seeing things in the media about who’s in favor, who’s not in favor,” said O’Dwyer. “Our decision is to figure out that at the end of this, we as a commission, are satisfied that the people who are licensed have both the operational ability and upmost integrity.”

O’Dwyer also stressed that the commission can issue up to three licenses, but it is not required to issue any licenses at all, especially if the projects are not convincing enough to “serve the public interest.”

Chad Beynon, an analyst at Macquarie who covers gambling and hospitality, says winning one of New York’s licenses will put a lucky casino operator in a market with one of the largest populations with the highest wealth per person ratios in the country—a combination that could create the best performing casino in the country.

“New York is the biggest opportunity for years to come,” Beynon tells Forbes.

Until earlier this year, some of the gambling industry’s biggest players vied for bids in Manhattan, thought to be the golden goose of all casino licenses, but these projects could not pass the first hurdle—community support. Local approval was required for the proposals to move forward before the state gaming commission would even consider the projects.

The casualties included Related Companies, the developer behind Hudson Yards in Manhattan, who teamed up with Wynn Resorts for a proposed casino near the Javits Center along Manhattan’s West Side. Wynn and Related dropped its bid in May after citing it came to terms with “years of persistent opposition” from community leaders and local politicians.

Commercial real estate giant SL Green Realty Corp., Jay-Z’s Roc Nation and Caesars Entertainment hoped to bring Caesars Palace to the heart of Times Square, but the state-commissioned community advisory committee rejected the project in September thanks to intractable opposition led by the Broadway League, a trade organization of producers and theater owners.

A project dubbed Freedom Plaza near the United Nations on the east side of Manhattan, was also rejected last month. Stefan Soloviev, son of the late Sheldon Solow, who built a fortune in Manhattan real estate, owns the six-acre tract of undeveloped land that he wanted to turn into a casino with Native American gaming company Mohegan. The $3.5 billion proposed project would have featured a 1,000-room hotel, two residential towers, a Ferris wheel, a soccer field, and a museum dedicated to democracy featuring large slabs of the Berlin Wall from Soloviev’s personal collection.

The only casino proposal in Brooklyn, The Coney, a $3 billion proposal, was rejected by Coney Island community late last month as well. The project was backed by real estate developer Thor Equities, founded by Coney Island native Joe Sitt, Saratoga Casino Holdings, which owns a racino upstate, the Chickasaw Nation, and Legends, a joint venture between the New York Yankees and Dallas Cowboys.

Las Vegas Sands, which currently does not have a presence in the United States after selling its two Las Vegas casinos, the Venetian and Palazzo, to Apollo Management for $6.25 billion in 2021, pitched a American homecoming with a multibillion-dollar development at the Nassau Coliseum on Long Island. But LVS decided to drop out of the process in April.

With only a few weeks left before the state’s gaming commission makes a decision about the licenses, here are the four monied players still at the table.

Bally’s Bronx

Bally’s Corporation is pitching a $4 billion investment to build a casino and integrated resort spanning 16 acres next to Bally’s Golf Links in Ferry Point.

Led by chairman Soo Kim, a Queens native and founder of the New York-based hedge fund Standard General, Bally’s already owns and operates 19 casinos across 11 states, including a new one in Chicago and is in the process of trying to build a baseball stadium for the Athletics on the site of the old Tropicana hotel in Las Vegas. The company’s vision in the Bronx is to build a 250-foot-tall casino spanning three million square feet that can hold 3,500 slots and other gambling machines, 250 table games, and a poker room. The proposal also includes a 500-room luxury hotel, dining and entertainment venues, a 2,000-person event center, and meeting spaces. Bally’s Bronx is projected to generate over $1 billion in revenue from gambling and more than $200 million in taxes to the state annually. If Bally’s wins a license, it has committed to giving $27.5 million a year for community investments.

“It is the biggest prize in gaming, potentially ever,” Kim tells Forbes. “New York, it’s a game changer. It’s a license that every single gaming company, basically, has competed for. And to be the last four is exciting. These will be the largest casinos in the country.”

The media have focused a lot of attention on the fact that the Trump Organization will receive a $115 windfall if Bally’s is granted one of the licenses, but Kim, a shrewd dealmaker himself, says his company already came out on top. “We think that the city and ourselves got the better deal,” says Kim. “He owned it before he became president the first time. It’s not an endorsement. It was purchase of a license that he owned for more than 15 years.”

MGM Empire City

Empire City is a racino that sits 45 minutes north of Manhattan in Yonkers. With 4,600 slot machines and a horse racetrack, where the famed thoroughbred Seabiscuit once ran, the property generated $604 million in gaming revenue last year.

MGM Resorts International, which owns 31 casinos around the world and generated $17.2 billion in revenue last year, acquired Empire City Casino at Yonkers Raceway in 2019. It is proposing a $2.3 billion project, which includes $1.8 billion investments to revamp the property. With 162,250 square feet of new development, the facility will include a 5,000-seat entertainment venue and 9,300 square feet of meeting space. MGM says that the 863,500 square-foot facility is projected to generate up to $1.39 billion in gaming revenue a year.

“Our speed-to-market and international brand loyalty, as well as our location’s ability to recapture entertainment dollars leaving for neighboring states, are key competitive advantages for our proposal,” says Louis Theros, president of MGM’s northeast group.

Metropolitan Park

Billionaire Steve Cohen, who owns the Mets, teamed up with Hard Rock International to propose an $8.1 billion development project to transform the parking lot next to Citi Field in Flushing, Queens into a casino, hotel, convention center, entertainment venue, and 25 acres of new park space.

If approved, Metropolitan Park, as it is known, will span across 78 acres. The development will connect Flushing Meadows Corona Park, where the Billie Jean King National Tennis Center sits, to Citi Field and Flushing Bay. The proposal also includes the future site of the New York City Football Club stadium, affordable housing, public transit improvements and a $163 million impact fund, totaling $1 billion in benefits for Queens.

With 5,000 slot machines, 375 live dealer tables, 30 poker tables and an 18,000 square foot sportsbook, Metropolitan Park is projecting to generate $3.9 billion in revenue and $850 million in taxes annually by the third year of operations. “We are grateful for the opportunity to move forward in this process and be one step closer to making Metropolitan Park’s community-first vision a reality,” says Karl Rickett, Metropolitan Park spokesperson.

Jim Allen, chairman of Hard Rock International, which is owned by the Seminole Tribe of Florida and has 19 casinos across the U.S., Canada and Mexico, says it is a “true honor” to have the community advisory committee unanimously approve Metropolitan Park. “We are deeply grateful for the opportunity to move forward together toward the next step,” says Allen.

Resorts World New York City

Resorts World Casino New York City, which is at the storied Aqueduct, the thoroughbred race track in Jamaica, Queens, has historically been one of the best-performing casinos in the U.S. In 2024, Resorts World, which only has video slots and video table games in addition to horse racing, brought in $692 million from its gambling machines and $284 million from Nassau Downs off-track betting terminals.

Resorts World, which is owned by Genting, Malaysian billionaire Lim Kok Thay’s company, is proposing to transform its current facility into a $5.6 billion integrated resort featuring a 500,000-square-foot casino with 6,000 slots, 800 tables, 2,000 hotel rooms, a 7,000-seat entertainment venue, a conference center, restaurants, a spa and more. The company projects that the Vegas-style casino will generate $2.2 billion in annual revenue. The project is also backed by Nas, the hip-hop artist who grew up nearby in Queens.

The Empire State has long been the heart of Genting’s U.S. gambling empire. Resorts World New York City opened in 2011, and the company opened Resorts World Catskills, which is two hours north of the city in Monticello, in 2018 and cost $1.2 billion. Resorts World Las Vegas opened in 2010, at a cost of $4.3 billion, becoming the most expensive resort developed in Sin City.

Now the question is—will this new gamble pay off?

More from Forbes

ForbesCaesars Palace In Times Square? Don’t Bet On ItBy Will YakowiczForbesThe Big Gamble: Inside The Battle to Operate A Casino In New York CityBy Will YakowiczForbesBillionaire Stefan Soloviev On Why He’s Betting $3 Billion On A Casino In ManhattanBy Will YakowiczForbesWhy Las Vegas Casinos Won’t Gamble On CannabisBy Will YakowiczForbesBillionaire Behind Troubled Crystal Cruises Is Moving Ahead With Bigger Casino BetsBy Will Yakowicz

Little more than 48 hours passed last week between a warning from the IMF chief, Kristalina Georgieva, that “uncertainty is the new normal” and Donald Trump’s latest tariff onslaught – this time aimed at China.

Markets plunged on Friday after Trump threatened to levy punitive additional tariffs of 100% on Chinese goods in retaliation for Beijing’s blocks on exports of rare earth minerals.

The world’s finance ministers and central bankers will meet in Washington this week for the annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank.

In her curtain-raiser speech for the gathering, Georgieva rightly pointed out the global economy has proved more resilient than some feared at the time of the spring meetings in April, when the world’s policymakers were transfixed by the chaos emanating from the White House.

Part of the reason for that has been “front loading”: Trump’s intention to jack up tariffs was no secret, and many companies ran up inventories in advance and started to rejig their supply chains.

Another explanation is that the US’s trading partners have in general preferred to use a combination of flattery and capitulation in the face of Trump’s approach, rather than causing an all-out trade war.

Meanwhile, firms and governments have increasingly been forging new trade connections that bypass the US, creating what Adam Posen, the director of the Washington-based Peterson Institute for International Economics, has called a “new economic geography”.

There was evidence of this in the latest update from the UN’s trade and development arm, Unctad, last week.

“Trade growth remained positive in the first half of 2025, despite rising trade policy uncertainty, persistent geopolitical tensions and a challenging global economic environment,” Unctad reported.

Far from grinding to a halt, global trade expanded by more than $500bn (£375bn) in the first half of the year and was expected to continue growing in the third quarter, with much of the momentum coming from developing countries.

Adding to the sense of shifting tectonic plates, Unctad highlighted the continued prevalence of “friendshoring” – the phrase coined by the former Federal Reserve governor Janet Yellen to describe trading with trusted geopolitical allies.

The impact of tariffs on the US economy also appears to have been less dramatic than first feared – though with policy continuing to change by the week, the full effects have likely not yet reached American consumers.

Yet Friday’s furore was a reminder that, as Georgieva argued, there are still reasons to be fearful – or as she put it: “Global resilience has not yet been fully tested. And there are worrying signs the test may come.”

As the new row with China shows, Trump is continuing to wield tariffs as a weapon, creating fresh shocks in financial markets. The impact has been especially tough in developing countries, some of which, as Unctad pointed out, have faced some of the highest tariffs.

Away from trade policy, the White House continues to pursue unfunded tax cuts and trash the economic institutions usually considered the cornerstones of credibility – including the Federal Reserve.

Over time, that must surely undermine market confidence, including in US Treasuries (government bonds) – an important benchmark against which assets in global markets are valued. There is little sign of that yet; but once lost, economic credibility is hard to rebuild.

Part of the reason markets have not responded more skittishly to this and other concerns is that the economic picture is being flattered by another extraordinary and unpredictable phenomenon: the AI boom.

That amounts to another reason to worry. A wall of funding continues to pour into the tech industry as investors bet on the future of generative AI and battle to build the massive datacentres required to train and run the models.

Data from the World Trade Organization last week showed that a full 20% of the growth in global goods trade in the first half of the year was accounted for by “AI-related goods – including semiconductors, servers, and telecommunications equipment”, much of it flowing from Asia to the US.

As Ben May of Oxford Economics said recently: “The surge in US capital spending to develop AI capability has been masking weakness in other parts of the domestic economy.”

However, a growing number of observers have begun to fret that generative AI may not deliver the extraordinary gains that would justify Wall Street valuations of the tech companies.

And the increasingly complex web of cross-shareholdings between some of the key firms involved has raised eyebrows.

The Bank of England last week became the latest body to warn about the risk of a “sudden correction” in global markets if the AI boom goes into reverse.

“On a number of measures, equity market valuations appear stretched, particularly for technology companies focused on artificial intelligence. This … leaves equity markets particularly exposed should expectations around the impact of AI become less optimistic,” it said.

Georgieva echoed that caution, comparing the AI boom to the dotcom bubble around the turn of the millennium. “Today’s valuations are heading toward levels we saw during the bullishness about the internet 25 years ago,” she warned, raising the spectre of a “sharp correction”.

The dollar and dollar-denominated assets remain the lifeblood of much of global finance, despite efforts since the financial crisis to build up the importance of other currencies – so an AI crash would reverberate worldwide.

Perhaps it is fitting that Trump has unleashed a new round of destabilising threats just as policymakers fly into town to take the temperature of the world economy. It certainly drove home Georgieva’s central message to them: “Buckle up.”

What used to be a last resort is now becoming a power move: high-paying men are outsourcing their love lives.

A growing number of high-net-worth male professionals are ditching dating apps and turning to luxury matchmaking services, spending tens of thousands of dollars to find a serious partner.

Frustrated by ghosting, burnout, and superficial matches, some are opting for curated introductions, even if it means paying $20,000 or more for the right match.

Grant Miller, a 39-year-old VFX executive, gave dating apps another try after a breakup last year — and quickly remembered why he hated them.

“I was on Raya and Tinder, and you’d think the experience would be better on Raya — but it’s not. It’s just the same,” he told Business Insider. “An enormous waste of time and energy.”

Years earlier, he’d met a serious partner through a matchmaking service in Los Angeles.

The relationship lasted over three years and convinced him to try again. After interviewing three firms, Miller chose Maclynn, a luxury matchmaking agency based in London, where he now lives.

Since signing up in September 2024, he said he has paid about £20,000, or about $26,000, and been introduced to 16 women through the service.

“We took a very ‘open’ approach as I was available and enjoyed meeting new people,” he said, adding that some dates turned into short relationships or friendships.

One connection, he added, has long-term potential — but “our schedules and lifestyles need some alignment, which has been challenging.”

Still, he’s said it’s worth it.

“When you multiply the time you’d spend dating by your hourly rate, the fees suddenly become not so bad,” he said. “I value my time, and I’m serious about finding the right person.”

The data behind the dating shift

While most clients prefer to stay anonymous, four matchmaking firms told BI they’re seeing a clear increase in demand from HNW men.

Selective Search, a US-based firm, said it’s seen a 35% increase in clients since 2019 and a 65% jump in inquiries. According to marketing specialist Grace Urban, that momentum is accelerating in 2025, with a 23% rise in male clients year-to-date.

“This steady demand has been driven by high-quality men seeking a more intentional and effective way to date,” she said.

Maclynn, the agency Miller chose, reported double-digit year-on-year growth in its HNW male client base every year since 2020.

“This reflects a nearly fivefold increase in just five years,” said Mia Wealthall, the company’s global operations director. By the end of September, 70% of new clients were HNW men, and sign-ups for that group were up 25% year-over-year for the third quarter.

Matchmaking.com also reported a 60% client surge between 2020 and 2021, followed by 25% growth in both 2022 and 2023 and another 20% increase over 2024 to 2025.

“More high-earning men are stepping away from the noise of dating apps,” said Cheryl Maida, the firm’s director of matchmaking. “They’re tired of endless conversations that go nowhere, ghosting, and not knowing who’s actually serious.”

UK-based Ignite Dating said male inquiries are up 42% over the past 18 months.

The industry as a whole is booming. According to Verified Market Research, the premium matchmaking market is projected to nearly double, from $1.27 billion in 2023 to $2.39 billion by 2032.

Who these men are — and why they’re doing this

For Miller, the appeal of matchmaking isn’t just about convenience — it’s about increasing his chances of finding someone exceptional.

“You start doing percentages of percentages of percentages. And you’re down to like one in a hundred thousand women,” he said. “And I’m not going to meet a hundred women on my own.”

What matters most to Miller is ambition and emotional alignment.

“Financial success doesn’t always translate to romantic success,” he said. “It kind of narrows the dating pool if you’re looking for someone who’s not intimidated or overly motivated by wealth.”

Matchmaking helps with that, he said. “I think they’re very good at sniffing out — for lack of a better word — just the kind of ‘gold digger.’ I’m looking for someone who’s additive to my life. And who’s bringing their own value to the equation.”

How matchmaking works

Unlike dating apps, which rely on algorithms and swipes, high-end matchmaking is slow, high-touch, and personalized.

Clients often start with a two-to-three-hour interview, exploring their values, past relationships, and goals.

“They really get into the interview process a ton,” said Miller. “I spent probably an hour or two just chatting through previous relationships, what went well, what went poorly, what I’m working on as a person.”

Matchmakers begin sourcing matches — sometimes via internal networks, sometimes by headhunting. At Maclynn, high-net-worth clients often trigger global searches and discreet outreach.

Matches come with bios, photos, and backgrounds. Miller said the contrast with apps is stark: “You’re kind of meeting, not an actual person, but this hyped-up kind of fake representation of themselves.”

Hinge, Raya, and Tinder didn’t respond to Business Insider’s requests for comment.

Why the trend is taking off now

Jess Carbino, a former sociologist for Tinder and Bumble, told BI the rise of luxury matchmaking isn’t necessarily about rejecting dating apps — but about control.

“This isn’t necessarily a reflection of dating apps generally, but rather shifts related to how people outsource what used to be a very personal, familial, and institutionally-based process,” she said.

“They outsource their laundry, they outsource their food delivery, they outsource, you know, major parts of their fitness to a coach,” she added. “Why not outsource one other element of their life, which is highly salient?”

Pepper Schwartz, a professor of sociology at the University of Washington and coauthor of “Relationship Rx: Prescriptions for Lasting Love and Deeper Connection,” concurred — but added that many wealthy men believe price equals results.

“The idea that money will buy you a better product, a better treat, a better person,” she said. “Whether that is true or not, that’s the theory that many of them have.”

She warned the matchmaker pool may be smaller than clients realize: “They usually believe there’s more denominator available than is actually there, and they haven’t done the homework to know.”

Even so, she said, the pressure to partner up later in life is real — and high-end matchmaking offers the illusion of control in what can feel like a high-stakes search.

“You may hope that something will just happen for you,” she said, “but if you really want love, you’ve got to get out there and look for it.”