You took office in early 2019, and then just one year into it, you had to handle this unexpected and once-in-a lifetime COVID-19 pandemic. Tell us about this journey.

Bill Miller – For me, as someone who became CEO in the early part of 2019 and then in March of 2020, the world kind of changed. The pandemic raged across the world. A huge amount of uncertainty came from a health and business perspective. And the gaming industry was no different. In some cases, you could argue it was hit harder than other industries because our brick-and-mortar properties globally all shut down. I think about my history, and the only point of reference was the previous employment I had for years in the chamber of commerce, and I worked there during the time of the financial crisis in 2008 and 2009. This wasn’t a health crisis; it was a global crisis. The question of whether banks would survive was a real question.

When I think about where the gaming industry is today versus where they were in 2008, and they were much more leveraged, exposed, they did not have the liquidity and the balance sheets they have today. They carried a lot more debt on their books than they do today.

In the 2008–2009 financial crisis, the gaming industry dealt with some existential issues…

B. M. – I remember politicians saying, “maybe this is not a bad thing to see the gaming industry go down”. And there was the minority view, but there were some people saying, “Look, we don’t need, at a time when we have all these financial stresses, more people gambling.” The industry at the time stood up and said: “Recognise that we are jobs, that we are a lot of economic activity, that we pay a tremendous amount of taxes and help fund social programs.” I think that at least for me, in my personal journey, that experience was very helpful in helping to navigate the American Gaming Association during 2020. We had to work with CDC [Centres for Disease Control and Prevention], with government officials both in the US as well as having a better understanding with the Macau Government in terms of what is required and how and when are we going to be able to reopen the industry. And certainly in Macau, it was particularly difficult because of the dynamic that existed with a tremendous amount of uncertainty for both the success of battling the virus as well as ensuring employment for the workers on certainly the three American properties that I can speak to and the retendering process happening all at the same time.

You mentioned the retention of job posts. That was a time the industry was burning millions every single day. And still, they made that effort to ensure a level of employment stability. How were you following the situation?

 B. M. – I can only speak for the three American operators that I represent in Macau. But what they showed was that they were committed to Macau. They were committed to the region; they were committed to the people that were working for them. And they wanted to be good citizens and good citizens. And they showed that by literally losing hundreds of millions of dollars to ensure that the families of the workers that work for them were able to continue to provide for their families. So I think I was very proud of that. And a very similar dynamic existed in the United States where every single casino in the US closed for months at the time. And during those months, casinos became vaccination centres, COVID testing areas. They were huge contributors to food banks. They helped employ their employees with salaries even when they weren’t open. So I think it was a very difficult chapter in the industry’s history. But probably one that we should be most proud

In the case of Macau and the American investment, all of this took place amid rising geopolitical tensions between China and the United States. At the end of the day, the same three US operators secured their concessions. What’s your comment on this?

B. M. – I don’t fancy myself as a US-China relations expert, and I think that where Wynn, MGM, and Sands demonstrated their commitment to the people of Macau and to the region and the Greater Bay region, they proved they were worthy of the concession. It did not have anything to do with what US-China political relationships were. These were three businesses that, while they have American names on the sites of the buildings, at the end of the day, they were very local employers. Very important local employers.

Talking about the post-COVID recovery, the gaming industry is bouncing back strongly. Generally speaking, have we reached the peak buoyed by pent-up demand, or do you see further room for growth?

B. M. – It’s difficult to gaze into the crystal ball and see what the future is, but I think there are many people who saw the recovery as pent-up demand, as people had been trapped in their homes for so long. Revenge spending. A lot of people said this would be a big spike and then there was going to come back down. But what we have seen in the US is sustained growth, year-over-year, quarter-to-quarter, month-to-month. I don’t know if I have every answer to why that is, but I would say that certainly in the US, what we saw is that in many cases the casinos were among the first in the travel and leisure space to open. And so, casinos opened before theatres, concert venues, sporting events in person. So, because of that, younger people that would have gone to any of those other things went to casinos. So the question we were always worried about in our industry has been: Is our population that enjoys casinos getting too old? And what we saw was during the reopening was a younger demographic come to casinos. That younger demographic didn’t necessarily know what casinos were, it wasn’t part of their entertainment dollar mix, and now it was because they didn’t have other options. And we see today that the demographic of our casino visitor is a younger, more affluent customer. So, we think that’s sticky, we think that person, maybe they used to go to the concert now they can go to the casino, they can go to the concert at the casino, to a restaurant at the casino, a pool. And stay there at the hotel on the casino.

An eye-opener…

B. M. – We opened the eyes of people that may have been closed to casinos. And I think that has continued because many people that covered the industry from a financial perspective said 2022, of course, is going to be a great year for the industry, but 2023 it’s never going to replicate. And look at the figures. They are continuing to go strong. Is it going to last forever? No. It’s going to slow down. You can’t continue to grow at the same level. But I think that what we have done is to open up new demographic groups to recognize and understand the fun that can be had at our properties. The same thing can be said in Asia.

Talking about the Asian market, let’s start with Singapore. Being here at G2E Asia in late May/early June 2023, how do you take stock of the situation?

B. M. – I think the market is very strong here. The trendline for Singapore is a very strong one. And I think that what we will see in 2023 will probably be a record year for Singapore. I think it’s not dissimilar to these other places. People had been stuck and they want to travel, to see things, to have fun. And our industry is set up for that perfectly.

And the Philippines is also on course to a record-breaking year…

B. M. – I don’t know the Philippine market that well. But I’m aware and certainly understand that they are having similar growth and opened up early. Destinations that offer high-level gaming opportunities are going to benefit from that always but in a dynamic that the world shut down and opened up, places where you can go in the early days of opening are going to have an advantage.

Macau came late to the party, but it’s somehow stealing the limelight as the story has shifted to Macau bouncing back. Are you surprised by Macau’s strong recovery after three years of zero-COVID and the crackdown on junkets?

B. M. – I’m not surprised because Macau was a global leader in gaming, not only in Asia, but the numbers Macau achieved were bigger and stronger than Las Vegas. So the appetite for gaming in the Asia region has always been extraordinary. The bounce back was going to come; the question was where it was going to go. I think certainly Singapore and the Philippines were beneficiaries because of early opening. But at the end of the day, the experience that was created in Macau, the concentration, the retail hospitality, all the different things—I think, quite frankly, with the re-tendering and the commitment by those who were all renewed to non-gaming investments, it will only make Macau even stronger.

The focus on gaming took centre stage in the re-tendering process. What are your expectations with regards to the commitment made by the operators?

B. M. – It will make for an exciting next ten years because I think the commitments, the conversations, shared vision of what the Greater Bay Area should look like—all of those were part of the conversation regarding re-tendering. So, for the casino operators, the opportunity to help fulfil that vision is exciting. And if you run a good business, you run a good casino, integrated resort, you will be able to figure out how to create multiple options of entertainment for individuals that include gaming and non-gaming. You see that in places like Las Vegas, and you see it over here in Sentosa, Singapore. Here, when you walk out of this property (Marina Bay Sands), you walk out into museums, science centres, recreational options. What you see is families, and that is different, and that the re-tendering process created a focus around, and I think that will be an important next chapter for the continued success of Macau.

In addition to the existing players in the region, throughout this decade, we are set to welcome new jurisdictions into the game, namely Japan and Thailand, as well as the Middle East. What kind of industry landscape are we heading towards?

B. M. – What we are seeing globally is an embrace of gaming because it’s mainstream entertainment. The same stereotypes that we have had to battle in the industry for many years, such as “this is going to bring the wrong kind of people” or “this is not going to create the right kind of jobs” or “this is going to make property values go down” or “crime is going to increase,” are being proven wrong. Time and time again, we have shown that the opposite happens. We are one of the biggest taxpayers in the places where we operate. We are good citizens. We employ a lot of people. We contribute a lot of money in taxes, and we create economic engines in places that sometimes had nothing before. So, I think that in a day when the media is very quick to judge, it’s important to see what the realities are. When you see success stories like Macau, Las Vegas, or other places, you realize the positive impact that gaming can have.

In terms of Japan, I was in Tokyo before the pandemic, and I spoke with Japanese government officials about American integrated resorts (IRs) and our commitment to responsible gambling. We emphasized that our business model is not predatory but sustainable, focusing on entertainment rather than emptying people’s pockets or wallets. I also visited Osaka, and it is going to be extraordinary. It will help fulfil a dream that Shinzo Abe had in terms of creating additional tourism in Japan. I believe that when Osaka becomes successful, other prefectures will follow suit.

Similarly, in the United Arab Emirates, there are a number of things to think about and work through, but the location is rather extraordinary. It’s a seven-hour plane ride from 85 percent of the world’s population.

How about Thailand?

B. M. – I don’t know enough about Thailand to gaze into the crystal ball. But certainly, it’s a great country with great people. And adding gaming, casinos, as another reason to go to a country is certainly something countries now think about. They never thought about it before. They used to think, “Oh no, that will make our country less desirable.” Now they think about it as something that adds to the allure. New York City is talking about putting casinos.

Reputation is crucial, as you have been stressing, alongside corporate social responsibility. The same goes for self-regulation. You say that it’s better to move ahead with self-regulation in the industry than to sit and wait for the government to step in.

B. M. – In this business, if you want to be successful, you have to be in it for the long term. The short-term profits that you may be able to get by exploiting your customers come with great danger and blowback from governments and public sentiment. All you have to do is look at Australia, look at the UK. These are places where the public views the gaming industry very unfavourably because they think it’s predatory. And they probably have good reason to believe it. So, what I say is you have to lean into responsibility. It has to be core to what you think about as you’re running your business. You can still be profitable and responsible at the same time. In fact, the two are linked in a successful long-term industry.

Gaming jurisdictions are often a target of suspicions in terms of issues such as money laundering and illegal outflows of capital. How has the AGA been working on this with your members and industry players?

B. M. – In the US, we work very closely with the Department of Treasury, the Department of Justice, and the IRS. We file more suspicious activity reports than anybody else. We adhere to the same practices as banks regarding the source of funds and Patriot Act requirements in money movement. So, I think that as an industry, we have a lot of experience. The American industry has a lot of experience and a very good track record in working with the government to ensure that the people who are playing are the people they say they are and that their source of funds is legitimate. My view is that the question of knowing your customer is hugely important. We will bring that to any of these new markets that are opening, employing the same types of practices.

Casino businesses all around the world tend to be over-regulated compared to other businesses. In Macau, in addition to the retendering process, we had new gaming-related legislation being adopted in tandem with increasing the oversight and supervision of the government. At the time, some voices said the authority was going too far. How do you see this balancing act?

B. M. – I think that ultimately, it’s always difficult to analyse the interplay between the operators who are looking for retendering and the restrictions that were contemplated and the ultimate restrictions. I’ve spent a good part of my life either in government or advising governments or lobbying government. I think it doesn’t matter nearly as much what people thought might happen, what really matters is what did happen. And I think that the government and the operators went in with good faith, and the operators had very strong and compelling stories to tell about why they should stay. And the government agreed.

Combating illegal gambling ranks pretty high on your agenda. What can be done to eradicate or at least reduce to a minimal size this phenomenon?

B. M. – I think illegal gambling is the greatest threat to the legally regulated industry. But I’m also not naïve. There has been illegal gambling a long time before legal gambling. There are many elements to illegal gambling. From illegal slot machines and slot parlours to pop-up casinos to illegal offshore sites that don’t pay taxes and don’t hire anybody in the market. So they don’t go through the licensing process and they don’t pay any taxes. You as a consumer, if you win a bet on a sportsbook, you may not get paid. What is your recourse? Are you going to go to Malta? Or Curacao? And demand the money from some operator? I don’t think so. Education and making it as difficult as possible for the illegal operators to operate. I think education and making it as difficult as possible, that’s our goal. Eradication is a goal, it’s something to aspire to. The illegal gambling market is our common foe.

IGaming is booming. How do you see the dynamics between land-based casinos and online gaming?

B. M. – I think that Covid was a great illuminator for this question, and every brick-and-mortar brand in the US had a digital property. And during a period of time, for months and months, when brick and mortars were shut down, every one of them went to digital markets and were able to survive. They were able to look at the ability for them to continue their operations online. In the US, it’s important to remember that it’s not one market. It’s state by state regulation. There are only seven states that have iGaming. So it is not a major component of the gaming industry, but in the places where we have brick and mortar and iGaming, the brands have figured out ways to make this additive. Someone wants to play i-casino on their phone, that is a branded property of MGM, they can also go to an MGM property and use the rewards points that they get by using their phone and go see a Taylor Swift concert and go to Gordon Ramsay’s restaurant. What used to be seen as a zero-sum game – “iGaming is going to win and is going to make all these casinos crumble” – is not happening.

I think that even the casinos that had previously been very openly antagonistic towards iGaming, they all have digital properties now. Every single one.

Not in Macau…

B. M. – Yes, and that’s fine. But again, only seven states in the US have iGaming. It’s not like everybody in the US is on the phone one day and in the casino the next. It’s still very much a work in progress.