Dreams, one of Chile’s largest casino operators, has revealed that it chose not to submit bids during the recent public tender process for casino operations in Iquique, Coquimbo, Viña del Mar, and Pucón due to what it describes as "excessively burdensome" conditions set by the licensing authority. The company's decision left only two offers submitted for the four locations, with no interest expressed in two of them, Viña del Mar and Iquique. The announcement came after the official receipt of technical and economic proposals on Tuesday morning, which marked the end of the bidding period managed by the Superintendencia de Casinos. According to Dreams' statement, the technical requirements imposed by the licensing body were deemed unreasonable and did not foster competition. The firm emphasized that its board of directors made the collective decision not to participate in any of the processes because they found it commercially unviable. This followed the submission of offers from Casino Volcán Pucón S.A. for Pucón and Casino de Juegos de Coquimbo S.A. for Coquimbo, while Viña del Mar and Iquique remained without any applicants. In particular, Dreams highlighted the challenges associated with operating in Iquique. It stated that the conditions required all infrastructure built under the license to become municipal property upon completion, with no right to compensation. This meant that the investment would effectively turn into a sunk cost with no recovery potential. The total funding needed for constructing the facility alone was estimated at $55 million, excluding additional public improvement works, an annual minimum economic offer of 68,000 UF, a requirement for full employment continuity, and mandatory complementary projects such as a 1,500-person event hall and 380 parking spaces, costing approximately 160,000 UF. According to Dreams, these factors collectively prevented any positive return on investment. Regarding Viña del Mar, the former site operated by Enjoy, Dreams pointed out that the terms mandated a three-month start-up period, an unrealistic standard given that new entrants typically require at least seven months to prepare. The company also noted that the licensing rules failed to specify or guarantee when the property would be available for use, making it impossible to conduct a technical inspection of the premises. Additional financial obligations included an annual economic offer of 394,000 UF, comprehensive improvements to Peru Avenue up to 120,000 UF, and full employment continuity for staff. The current situation follows a ruling by the Tribunal de Defensa de la Libre Competencia (TDLC) on July 28, which rejected appeals filed by Marina del Sol S.A. and Corporación Meier S.A.C. regarding the decision not to suspend the granting of the operation permit for Viña del Mar. Similarly, the same tribunal upheld its previous rejection of similar requests from Corporación Meier S.A.C. and Dreams S.A. concerning the suspension of processes in Iquique, Coquimbo, Viña del Mar, and Pucón. This decision confirmed the initial ruling from July 2, which had already denied the appeal related to Viña del Mar. The outcome of this tender process highlights the complex interplay between regulatory frameworks and private sector participation in the gaming industry. With only two companies submitting offers, the lack of competition raises questions about the viability of the proposed conditions and their alignment with market realities. As the Superintendencia de Casinos moves forward, it will need to assess whether adjustments to the licensing criteria might encourage broader participation in future tenders. The response from other stakeholders in the industry could provide further insight into how these challenges might be addressed moving forward.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.
Become a Supporter
CL
