Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
A daily podcast delving into the biggest stories of the day throughout the sports betting and igaming sector.
Charlie Horner (00:01.43)
Entain and MGM Resorts have reported BetMGM's Q1 business update, offering investors a glimpse into the performance of the joint venture and outlining some of its strategic objectives. Against a tough backdrop of intense competition from both traditional competitors and the insurgent prediction markets, BetMGM still delivered $25 million in adjusted EBITDA in the opening quarter of 2026.
But is it all sunshine and rainbows or is there a bigger story to tell? Welcome back to iGaming Daily, supported by OptiMove, the creator of positionless marketing and the number one player engagement solution for sports betting and iGaming operators. I'm Charlie Horner and today I'm joined by SBC America's news editor, Tom Nightingale. Tom, how's things?
Tom Nightingale (00:50.403)
Yeah, not too bad. you. Always interesting when one of the major US players reports publicly, know, obviously considering everything that's going on in US gambling right now. So yeah, mean, Adam Greenblatt and co gave us plenty to get stuck into.
Charlie Horner (01:07.426)
Yeah, brilliant, it's always nice that it was sort of ringing the bell on earning season, so I'm sure we'll look forward to reporting on that over the coming weeks. Let's jump into it then, Tom. I think it's probably a good idea just to start with a rundown of the top line figures. So what's the scores on the doors for BetMGM in Q1?
Tom Nightingale (01:29.855)
Yeah, I mean, I would say sort of mixed, mixed reviews, mixed news, really, I think. I mean, you know, obviously, there's, there's growth, as there is every quarter, like year over year for for better GM. But I mean, we're pretty modest, really, I think net revenue is up about 6 % year over year. 696 million US dollars, I think. So it's like, you know, it's small growth.
Notice, notably, actually, mean, Citizens Bank, who in the, you know, the US, a huge, you know, do a lot of analysis of public, you know, publicly owned gambling brands, they their estimate was, I think, was more about seven, over 750 million. So 696 million, you know, falling, falling fairly significantly short of certainly what some analysts were projecting. But I mean, earnings like adjusted debit are up 11 %
year over year. we're seeing, you know, by BetMGM, BetMGM have set pretty high standards, I think, really for themselves. I imagine there will be some internal disappointment at the sort of single digit revenue growth and, you know, a bit of of a flattening of the curve. But I mean, they're still expecting
They maintain that they're still expecting to hit their guidance. It's interesting because they said they remain on track to hit their EBITDA and revenue guidance for the full year, but they have lowered it to right at the bottom end. So they've just about managed to get away with not having to say we have lowered our guidance. But it's clear that they're falling slightly short, I think, of what they were hoping, where they were hoping to be at the end of Q1.
Charlie Horner (03:19.234)
Yeah, I think it's important that we place the MGM within that context of the US because they have sort of positioned themselves as one of the main competitors for FanDuel and DraftKings, particularly since the repeal of PASPA and the formation of the joint venture between Entain and MGM. yeah, perhaps a little bit disappointing. you say that they sort of not really lowered their guidance. I think that's...
debatable perhaps. it is semantics, yeah, because they said that, I think originally it was like 3.1 to 3.2 billion in revenue for the full year. And I think now they're saying, well, it could be 2.9 billion to 3.1. So I guess that overlap gives them a little bit of leeway. But EBITDA are also set to hit the lower end of a full year guidance. It's not a great story to be telling.
Tom Nightingale (03:50.211)
Semantics, I think, isn't it really?
Charlie Horner (04:18.154)
investors, it?
Tom Nightingale (04:19.695)
No, I mean, yeah, to use citizens analysis again, right, I think that what they're a bit of guidance range is 300 to 350 million. And I think citizens are now saying they expect it to be 305. So I mean, you're talking you're just about scraping in there on you, you know, on getting in there on goal difference, really. But yeah, I mean, it's not, I don't know. It's, it's, it's not the it's not quite the story they will have wanted to tell this.
Charlie Horner (04:35.15)
That really is the lower end.
You
Tom Nightingale (04:49.069)
this quarter, but, you know, Adam Greenblatt CEO of MGM referred to a lot of, a lot of headwinds in his call. mean, some of this, think is just explaining away, you know, I think there's a certain level of, you know, trying to sort of sugar coat things, but there's no doubt that there are certain headwinds in the U S gambling industry at the moment. You know, we talked a bit about sporting customer friendly sporting results, which is a term we hear quite a lot.
But I mean, you have to look at the wider context, don't you? I MGM has more competition and newer competition in some fields than it had this time last year. So this is all relevant context, I think. But I mean, he said, you know, even with the slightly lower guidance, it's clear that they're confident they have the toolkit to succeed, you know, particularly, I think, on the online casino front, which I think will...
We'll talk about a little bit more. know, Bet.mgm have plenty of things going for them really, don't they?
Charlie Horner (05:50.805)
I think one thing I really picked up on that call was that, yes, there is slight disappointment with some of the numbers that have been posted, but there's a real bullishness that actually in the long term, they're on the right track and they definitely have the tools to overcome some of the challenges that they're facing. You mentioned the difference between sports and online casino and the fact that
there was perhaps some customer friendly results in Q1 that sort of skewed the numbers on sports, although that's the nature of the business, right? Could you put a bit of colour on the context of the difference between the results in online casino versus sports betting?
Tom Nightingale (06:24.589)
Mmm. Yeah.
Tom Nightingale (06:33.999)
I mean, you're right about the customer friendly results thing. That's kind of thing. It's, it's, you know, it's, it's on operators to find ways to mitigate that. Isn't it? So, you know, I think we hear it trotted out a lot on earnings calls. Oh, the results went against us. Well, a, they probably went against everybody then. And also isn't that kind of up to you to price appropriately and that sort of stuff. Anyway, says me from my armchair, you know? Um, but yeah, I mean, but MGM, so I think like the online casino, uh,
income, I think revenue from online casino was not far off $500 million, I think, whereas sports book is more like 200 million, it's a big, big difference, especially when you take into account, you know, in the US we're now at what in terms of active US state regulated sports betting jurisdictions, I think we're at about 32. Whereas online casino, obviously, you're talking more like seven, you know,
So considering how much of the US is available to MGM for sports compared to online casino, that's a stark difference. think there's several factors, think. I do think that results is an impact. can't really say online casino is particularly seasonal or particularly dependent on how external factors perform compared to sports. But also, mean, there's, I've heard operators talk about this quite a lot, like sports book.
Quite a lot goes in, I think, to running a sports book, like your pricing, breadth of markets available. There's a lot to differentiate on. Online casino comparatively, the number of suppliers that are in that game. OK, you want to offer a broad selection of of slots and table games and live dealer content and all this sort of stuff. You want those differentiating factors. But at the end of the day, most of your online casino players are just hitting spin.
and seeing what comes up like that comparatively I think that's a that surely can't be as heavy a lift on the operator as getting a leading sports book in places. And I mean what BenGM, what really fascinates me about BenGM's online casino side of things is they have a very very brand name and intellectual property heavy approach which I think is their differentiator in the market as far as I see like in the
Tom Nightingale (08:53.615)
from where I am in Ontario, certainly, you can get a lot on BetMGMs online casino that you can't get anywhere else. And while that's true of brands like Fangil with like their Huff and Puff series and know, this sorts of stuff. Like you go onto BetMGM and you see, let me, I'll top them ahead, you see Family Feud, you see The Price is Right. They also have signed deals, I think, to be exclusive providers and developers as well. Like a lot of these.
sort of development deals where they're involved in the inception of the process as well for things like Friends. They just announced one for Survivor, which in the US, huge, long running, hugely popular reality TV series. And I think even just this week they announced they're releasing sort of Elvis Presley branded slots that nobody else is going to have. Like how much stock you place in putting these pop culture icons, you know.
as a player, it depends, doesn't it? But there's no doubt that if you log onto an online casino and you see those kinds of things available, that's a standout. Wizard of Oz is another one they have. So they've really gone big on the intellectual property, developing these brand name things. The way that Greenblatt put it on the call was like, want to be within the online casino market. We want to be the home of entertainment. And I think there is something to be said for that. Like some of it is a bit...
sort of splashy PR talk, but I do think it probably goes a fairly long way. particularly maybe with the sort of more casual online casino customer, I would say.
Charlie Horner (10:26.873)
This is exactly what I was gonna add on to what you were saying there, Tom, is that if you're positioning yourself as the home of entertainment or the go-to online casino for the recreational player, having lots of different IP that people just know from TV shows, from games, from other media is a real big win for you. And yeah, I think...
BetMGM have always been very confident in its online casino products. It's, I think, more so perhaps than its sports book products. And I think that's something that Greenblatt was talking about on the call. With the prediction market competition, we'll talk about this a lot more after the break. I think online casino perhaps becomes a little bit more important for the regulated operators.
Greenblatt seems very optimistic about Alberta in particular, obviously a patch that you'll know very well having written about that extensively, and also he seemed quite confident that Virginia would legalise on like, you know, perhaps next year. What did he say about eye-gaming expansion in some of those territories?
Tom Nightingale (11:40.173)
Yeah, well, mean, know that, you know, BetMGM are looking forward to Alberta immensely. They are, it's hard to break down the Ontario market thing because they don't really sort of, operator by operator data. In fairness, they have about 50 of them. So that would be quite a heavy lift. But reputedly, at least from both comments from BetMGM and also some market analysis, like BetMGM are one of the market leaders in Ontario, particularly on the online casino side of things.
And obviously in the US, like markets opening up with both online sports betting and online casino at the same time is kind of like seeing a unicorn. Like that doesn't happen really. know, whereas Ontario, we're two, sorry, Canada, we're going to be two for two on that now, right? Ontario opened up with both, both verticals, Alberta doing the same for a company like bet MGM. That's a gold mine, frankly, not to say the least, you know, they also have people like, you know,
huge hockey stars, Wayne Gretzky, Conor McDavid as brand ambassadors, like that's going to go a long way in Alberta, hockey mad province. In the US, obviously, things are a little bit different. The Virginia thing, don't know. So to recap briefly, Virginia got pretty close, very close to legalizing online casino this year. Bill passed both the Senate and the House, and then basically lawmakers just couldn't agree on the specifics in conference. So it's sort of.
died but I don't know if died is really the right word because that was by a thousand miles the the the furthest they had got towards actually getting this thing done. Whether it happens next year I do not know but you can kind of understand why publicly people like Greenblatt are being very bullish because the conversation has certainly advanced significantly. You've also got Maine who's legalized online casino notwithstanding a court challenge. Their model is a bit different so BetMGM won't necessarily
guaranteed to get into the main market. But the fact that this sort of momentum is happening, even if states like Virginia don't quite get over the line, shows that I think maybe the conversation is being taken rather more seriously in some states than it would have been even a year ago. And yeah, maybe prediction markets is a factor.
Charlie Horner (13:56.1)
Yeah, it's not quite the abyss that we were talking about here, perhaps 12, 18 months ago. All right, Tom, we'll take a quick break and we'll come back and we'll place this within the context of the rise of prediction markets.
Welcome back to iGaming Daily. Now, Tom, you would have been glued to Adam Greenblatt's remarks yesterday. I think it's fair to say he's not a fan of prediction markets and their long-term outlook in terms of its wider popularity and rise into the mainstream. Now, we know that due to BetMGM's ownership,
there's going to be vested interest there, that's fine. But could you just give us a bit of a sense of what Green Black was talking about in terms of prediction markets?
Tom Nightingale (14:47.287)
Yeah, I mean, so the context you mentioned is obviously key. Like while Fanjul and DraftKings and Fanatics and people have sort of rushed into that prediction market space, BetMGM with MGM Resorts International is a co-owner with Las Vegas and state gaming licenses on the land-based side and stuff much more important to BetMGM's owners. They are in a different position. I think they're in a pretty awkward position personally, because like all of their, you know, their sports betting alliance, comrades, guess, slash.
competitors in the market like Fanjul and DraftKings and people are just are realizing this pretty profitable, you know, how profitable an opportunity is at the moment, I don't know, but they're realizing this opportunity in real time where Bet, while BetMGM kind of has to be on the sidelines, right? Greenblatt was in, you know, it's nothing new that he has publicly stated this position. You know, we side with our state regulatory partners, our tribal gaming partners, let's not forget is another factor for MGM. You know, he's been very staunch that like
while this is effectively being seen by state gaming regulators as illegal gambling, we cannot take part in this. It just doesn't work for us. What he did say that was pretty interesting, that was a bit new and interesting on this week's call was there were some pretty clear references to how much prediction markets companies are splashing out on marketing and everything nationwide. There's a vet, know,
some pretty forthright comments. They call themselves prediction markets. They're buying sports betting keywords as well as throwing money at any sports media property that will take it. They are targeting sports bettors directly in their marketing, thereby bidding up the cost of acquiring new players. Clearly while Greenblatt isn't alone as a sports book, a gaming executive saying the impact, we're not feeling that much impact. How much of that is sort of...
know, putting on a brave face or maybe even refusal to confront the actual reality that's unfolding in front of them. I don't know. But it was pretty interesting to hear him admit that at least the way that prediction markets are going about their business is starting, we're starting to feel the impact of that because it's hiking up some of our costs. And like I mentioned a bit earlier, like frankly, it's new competition, isn't it? know, BetMGM didn't want a Cauchy competitor because no
Tom Nightingale (17:11.885)
Nobody in the gaming world really knew who Kalshi were, you know, like 18 months ago. Now, you could argue that okay, while like DraftKings and Fangill and people obviously aren't doing the sports contracts things in states where they are competing with BetMGM as a sports book, Kalshi is, Crypto.com is, Polymarket is. A lot of these companies instantly market themselves.
you know, I don't know if they market themselves as offering sports betting nationwide, but they certainly market themselves as offering common trade on the results of sports games nationwide. To be honest, you know, it's the same thing. So I, it was interesting to hear Greenblatt reference that pretty openly. Because I think that now, the sports side of prediction markets, what started about this time last year really ramped up
kind of, I guess, start of NFL season and everything like the busy North American sports calendar in sort of September, October time. It's been long enough now that some of these effects are starting to be felt, I think.
Charlie Horner (18:16.202)
I think this is the first time that we've actually had some color of how it is genuinely having an impact on the operations of regulated sports box, aside from just share prices plummeting over the last 12 months in that industry. think it's, yeah, Bretton Gem's a really interesting example of this because, as you said earlier, Tom, they're sort of stuck in a quite awkward position. think they're...
illustrative, perhaps more so than any other operator at the minute, of that split we saw with the AGA, and now we're seeing similar sort of thing play out with the Sportsbetting Alliance as well. But having said all that, Greenblatt seems to be confident again in the long term, and as reporters we have to question whether that is genuine or whether he's putting on a brave face for investors, but he does seem quite confident that
Tom Nightingale (19:06.447)
Mm.
Charlie Horner (19:12.652)
in the long term regulated sportsbooks, these traditional sportsbooks, Bet MGM, Fanjula, DraftKings, etc. will win out in the long term because fundamentally it's just a better product. We've heard that argument before, but what he did also say was that it seems to be a completely different cohort of player as well.
Tom Nightingale (19:32.971)
Yeah, they were interesting comments as well. And you know, again, I wouldn't necessarily place full faith in those public comments about that he truly believes that they are completely different cohorts and there's no overlap. Of course, there's some overlap. I imagine there's a lot of people, even in regulated sports betting states who want to know how Cal-She or PolyMarkets options compared to Fanjool and DraftKings and BetMGMs, right, when all of that stuff is available to them, ostensibly, legally.
an asterisk for the time being. So there's clearly going to be some overlap, but what I will say is his comments. So mean, what he said was that we're not really competing for the same players because he said that prediction markets is going to be a place for, you know, if you're a professional sort of gambler.
If you're a really sharp, if you consider yourself a sharp, right, somebody who gets an edge on the house and all that, you know, or on other users, I guess, on prediction markets. If you're like a market maker, if you're a kid in high school, which I won't get into, know, there is also a bit more age leeway in some places, you know, this sort of stuff. He said, if you're in these categories, prediction markets are kind of the logical or at least most available place for you to bet on.
bet on sports online at the moment. That's just kind of the way it is. And I, you know, I think, do you think he has a point there? It's interesting, because I've seen that kind of reflected in some of some analysis, you know, from some of these like citizens and other firms like that in the US, there's been quite a lot of analysis happening. And the general consensus from people who are much more in the know than I am about this sort of stuff seems to be that yes, prediction markets are kind of a place to go right now. If you are
really sharp better or you know if you're somebody who maybe gets limited by a sportsbook because you're too good you don't necessarily face that kind of friction on a prediction market platform currently so it's a good place for you to go and beat the house or beat other players you know and and and get that edge. The flip side of that of course is that you
Tom Nightingale (21:48.525)
There's going to be a, I do agree to a certain extent with sports books executives when they say that you cannot get, you cannot replicate the full sports book experience on a prediction market platform with the huge caveat that I being in Canada and being a nice law abiding person, I have not used a prediction market platform to trade on sports or anything actually. so I don't know firsthand, you know, the consensus from people who have used them firsthand and stuff does seem to be that like, okay, like
Prediction market's kind of good if you think you can get an edge on who's going to win the next game or that sort of stuff. But if you want like, you know, a deep parlay or accumulator option, or you want like a wide range of player props or whatever, for now, at least sports books are your place to go. So, you know, all this to say, I think that while there is some overlap, I do think, you know, they're definitely not like for like audiences at the moment. But we kind of have to have to asterisk everything because
If they, you know, if prediction markets get legitimized in the courts in terms of offering sports, then they are presumably going to lean more heavily into trying to build out that product and sort of replicate, you know, the sort of deep sports experience more because it's such a potential moneymaker.
Charlie Horner (23:04.056)
Yeah, I agree with you in the sense that the for now part of the statement is, rings true. But I do really fear that, well, not fear, let's face it, I've got no skin in the game. I'm not even in the continent, never mind a user of any of these sites. But I do think that if Cauchy and Polymarket and these prediction markets, they position themselves as, and they achieve their goal, which is,
we are the place where you can predict anything and everything and we're going to revolutionize what it is to be a citizen, to be involved in politics, in public events, in sports, everything like that.
you're using Polymarket or Calcie for politics, news, current affairs, why wouldn't you also just use it for sports as well? And then you are looking towards the sports books to say, well, how do you compete with that? You're going to have to build out your product to essentially match the prediction markets, which I guess they're trying to do. But I think there's a slippery slope here if you're a regulated sports book.
Tom Nightingale (24:11.907)
Yeah.
Charlie Horner (24:20.109)
and you have to position yourself as just having the better product and offsetting some of those threats.
Tom Nightingale (24:23.311)
Mm.
I was, I, you I was having a really, I had a really, really interesting chat for our upcoming issue of SPC leaders magazine. I spoke to a couple of people at fanatics betting and gaming, including their chief trading officer who is, I'm sure he wouldn't mind me saying he's a huge like odds and product nerd built his own sports, but platform and odds making and all that sort of stuff. And I couldn't help given that fanatics have fanatics markets now in the prediction markets game. I couldn't help but ask how he.
assesses the difference in the products, right, the sports book and the prediction market. And he made another good point about the difference, which is that sports books kind of pour a lot into the what he called the generosity loop. So if you're a better and you're losing a little bit, or, you know, even if you're winning, you know, if a sports book wants to, which they often do, they can just hit you with like a $5 bonus bet, or they can hit you with a no sweat bet, you know, so bet on this, you get your money back anyway, you know,
And it's that kind of engagement that for a lot of people, you as long as it's used in the right way and it's not targeted to, you know, people who have shown signs of vulnerability and stuff. certainly for me as a casual bet, so that really enhances my entertainment factor on a sports book. Prediction markets just don't do that because it's not there. That's not their game, right? You know, they're not what they want is for people to, you know, the either trading. They, they count volume, right? So any trading is good.
And B, it's just not their, that's just not their model of operation. So I think for a lot of, it depends what you want, doesn't it? Like you say, if you want that all in one, I want to bet on the weather and the award, the entertainment award shows and the sports all at once. You have an option to do that for now, don't you? Whereas if you want that kind of deep dive, detailed sports betting experience, you want to be rewarded for your play and everything, then sports books for now probably do it.
Charlie Horner (26:19.385)
Yeah, definitely. And I think that casual and recreational part is where we'll just briefly bring it back to BetMGM before we leave because we did get sort of verged off into the whole prediction markets debate again, which we're more than happy to do on the show, of course. But let's talk about BetMGM within that context of the joint venture. We know that it's delivered some value back to its parents in this quarter, perhaps not as much as it perhaps wanted to or perhaps the parents expected to.
Do you think both parties are happy with the status quo at the minute? Obviously there was a lot of speculation three or four years ago whether there was going be movement in terms of an &A deal. I think that's probably off the table at the moment, but do think both parties are happy with the status quo or do you think there's a long-term play for both Entain and MGM?
Tom Nightingale (27:10.155)
It's a really interesting question. think that based on Bet MGM's general performance, I think both parties are probably pretty happy with how it's going. They're undoubtedly like a podium contender everywhere that they are, really. Certainly in iGaming, online casino, they are doing some pretty innovative and novel things.
And we know as well, that they've just started returning money to their parents, right? They've started getting cash back. Finally, it's kind of an actual, you know, there's dividend for both Entain and MGM Resorts. So I would think that they are sort of, you know, happy for the time being, I would think. I think you're probably lying if you look at Entain.
and say they would have no desire to explore some kind of prediction markets thing. For example, if they didn't have the sort of US politics of being in this joint venture with BetMGM. Like if Entain wholly owned BetMGM, I'd be very interested to see how that strategy on the prediction market side of things would differ considering like what Flutter are doing and all that sort of stuff. So I guess again, it's sort of dependent on how...
the US market unfolds really over the coming months, years, God knows, you know, it's very hard not to use, you know, we've used a lot of terminology like for now or asterisk. It's very hard not to feel like that with everything that you talk about really now big picture in the US gambling because we still, other than the fact that yeah, surely it's going to the Supreme Court. think recent court rulings have just shown that we need a Supreme Court decision on this prediction market stuff.
But until things like that get resolved, it's hard to know how companies are really feeling big picture, I think, because you're sort of on uncertain ground. But in terms of what you can see from Bit.mgm in front of them at the moment, I think there's nothing to be displeased about, really.
Charlie Horner (29:19.493)
Fantastic. Well, I think that's probably a good place to leave it, Tom, because we could probably talk about this all day, but we have other things that we need to be doing with our day. thanks a lot for taking the time, Tom. We'll put some links in the show notes so listeners can take a read of your coverage of all of the MGM's updates. Thank you to Optimove for supporting the show, and thank you to our audience for tuning into today's episode of iGaming Daily.
Tom Nightingale (29:28.483)
We do,
Charlie Horner (29:48.314)
and come back tomorrow to keep up to date with all the latest global gambling news.