Following recent stock declines at Flutter Entertainment, Las Vegas Sands has once again become the world’s most valuable gambling company. The Asia-focused casino operator now holds a market cap of $44.2 billion. Yet its biggest US growth ambition — building a casino in Texas — remains out of reach despite years of lobbying and millions in political spending.
Because Texas lawmakers only meet in odd-numbered years, 2025 was a crucial moment for Sands’ expansion plans. Miriam Adelson, the company’s controlling shareholder, significantly increased her lobbying budget, spending four times more than in 2023. Sands’ longtime government relations executive, Andy Abboud, even told iGB in October 2024 that the odds of gambling expansion in Texas were “greater than 50%.”
But legislators did not agree. Proposals to legalize casinos or sports betting never gained traction, and Sands’ most-supported candidate for the state Senate failed to make it into a run-off. Recent lottery scandals have also pushed some officials to adopt a tougher stance against gaming. Meanwhile, the upcoming attorney general and lieutenant governor races offer little hope that the political climate will shift in the industry’s favor.
Still, none of this has discouraged Sands from pursuing its Texas vision. The company is once again rolling out media campaigns, this time emphasizing the idea of recreating its world-renowned Singapore property, Marina Bay Sands, right in the heart of Texas.
In contrast, the company has stepped back from other US ambitions this year, including its bid for a New York casino and its short-lived digital gaming division. So why does Texas remain such an appealing target despite years of setbacks?
Texas has biggest pool of untapped population
The most straightforward reason Las Vegas Sands remains optimistic about Texas is its population. Recent estimates place the state at over 31 million residents, making it the second-most populated state after California. Following Texas are Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania.
However, California and Florida are effectively closed to Sands, as both states grant tribal nations exclusivity over Class III gaming. New York has become less attractive due to the growing likelihood of legalizing iGaming. Pennsylvania, meanwhile, is already saturated with casinos, online gaming, and unregulated skill games.
Texas stands out because it remains commercially untouched yet conservative toward gambling expansion — an ideal mix for a retail-focused operator like Sands that is prepared to invest heavily.
“Looking at the US overall, Hawaii, Utah, downstate New York, Georgia, and Texas are really the only true greenfield opportunities left,” said Gene Johnson, executive vice president at Victor Strategies. “Texas is the biggest prize because of its huge population and strong economic demographics, combined with a lack of gaming alternatives.”
Johnson believes that, for Sands, years of effort could be worth it if the company gains a significant first-mover advantage. In his view, it’s “probably better to secure half the pie in Texas” than settle for a small share in a crowded or less appealing market.
Previous projections from The Innovation Group estimated that a legalized Texas casino industry could generate between $2.5 billion and $3 billion in yearly tax revenue.
Market perhaps not as reliant on international traffic?
Another advantage for Sands is the possibility that a Texas casino would not depend heavily on international tourism, unlike destinations such as Las Vegas, Singapore, or New York. Las Vegas operators have repeatedly seen how vulnerable they are when global travel declines. By contrast, Texas’s massive population — with wealth concentrated in sectors like tech and oil but largely made up of local residents — could support a strong “super-regional” resort.
“I think it’ll be a great domestic market,” said Las Vegas-based consultant Brendan Bussmann of B Global Advisors. “Not just from big population centers like Dallas and Houston, but also from the broader regional draw.”
For years, neighboring states with casinos — including Oklahoma, Louisiana, and New Mexico — have benefited significantly from Texans traveling across state lines to gamble. If Texas were to legalize casinos, a portion of that outbound traffic could finally remain in-state.
Bussmann estimated that a Texas property could attract as much as 92%–93% domestic visitation. He noted that there are no direct comparisons for such a scenario, but the potential returns could be “exceptional” if major operators like Sands receive approval.
Johnson added that while there is some international potential, the real strength lies in the domestic market. “The bigger opportunity is the local customer — the entire population in the Dallas–Fort Worth and Houston areas — which could easily support a very large integrated resort,” he said.
Potential regulatory environment still very unclear
Perhaps the biggest uncertainty surrounding a future Texas casino market is the type of regulatory environment operators would face.
Given the state’s long-standing resistance to gambling, it’s difficult to envision lawmakers offering a particularly favorable regulatory framework if casinos were legalized. Still, with limited competition, those challenges might matter less to Sands than they would in more crowded markets.
Johnson suggested that Texas casinos would likely operate under a “tolerable” regulatory system and that Sands may even be “willing to risk a pretty high tax rate” if it means securing a major growth opportunity. For context, Nevada casinos pay a 6.75% tax rate but contend with heavy competition. In New York, where downstate casino licenses are still pending, the three chosen operators will face minimum tax rates of 25% on slots and 10% on table games.
For Bussmann, the bigger hurdle is developing a message that truly resonates with Texas lawmakers — something that has yet to materialize. He believes progress will require more than a single operator pushing its agenda, a strategy Sands may be reluctant to embrace.
“There’s a way to get this done, but it has to be a multi-pronged approach, not a one-solution effort,” Bussmann said. “You need multiple operators stepping forward with their own proposals, rather than just one saying, ‘Here’s our plan, and we’ll do everything to make it happen.’ Multiple voices offer different perspectives, and that’s what the process needs.”
