Today's IGT is a privately held gaming technology business controlled through an Apollo-backed Voyager structure, with a significant minority economic interest linked to De Agostini. It is not the same listed company whose historical shares traded under the IGT ticker. Nor does the percentage attached to an intermediate voting company describe how much of the entire operating business two individual executives personally own.
The distinction is essential to answering who owns IGT. The group operating under the IGT name was assembled on 1 July 2025, when investment funds managed by Apollo affiliates acquired the former International Game Technology PLC's Gaming & Digital business and Everi. The former PLC's lottery business continued separately as Brightstar Lottery. Our IGT corporate overview establishes the present entity; this page concentrates on its people, economic ownership and control.
Who owns IGT today?
The most useful publicly described ownership snapshot is 31 December 2025, not an automatically current register of every ultimate beneficial owner. Voyager’s FY2025 financial statements place approximately 88.66% of the economic interest in Voyager TopCo, L.P. with Apollo-related investors and approximately 11.33% with De Agostini-related investors. These are dated, rounded interests at the TopCo level. Their small rounding difference should not be assigned to an invented third shareholder.
| Economic interest in Voyager TopCo | At 31 December 2025 | What the number means |
|---|---|---|
| Apollo-related interests | Approx. 88.66% | Economic participation reported at the TopCo level |
| De Agostini-related interests | Approx. 11.33% | Minority economic participation at the same level |
| Caution | ; | Rounded, dated ownership snapshot; not a complete November 2026 beneficial-owner register |
The operating business is commonly described as Apollo-backed. That language is more precise than saying that public company Apollo Global Management, Inc. directly owns 100% of IGT. Apollo is an investment manager; acquisition vehicles associated with funds managed by its affiliates hold the relevant interests. Buying publicly traded Apollo shares is therefore not equivalent to buying a direct interest in private IGT.
Likewise, a De Agostini economic interest is not the same thing as a claim that the former public IGT PLC still owns the gaming supplier. De Agostini's continuing participation must be located in the post-transaction Voyager structure, not inferred from its relationship to the former issuer. The ownership terms and the historical transaction are explored separately in IGT history and acquisitions.
The Voyager ownership and control chain
The legal chain is easier to understand if economic ownership and corporate management rights are drawn separately. The ownership disclosures identify the following holding-company route above the operating businesses:
| Level | Legal entity | Role in the disclosed structure |
|---|---|---|
| Top economic partnership | Voyager TopCo, L.P. | Level at which the reported Apollo/De Agostini economic interests are expressed |
| Intermediate holding entity | Voyager Holdco I Corporation | Corporate holding link |
| Intermediate holding entity | Voyager Holdco II, LLC | LLC holding link |
| Consolidating parent | Voyager Parent, LLC | Reporting and acquisition-group parent of the private business |
| Acquired operations | Ignite Rotate LLC / former IGT Gaming & Digital, and Everi | Businesses brought together under the private IGT commercial identity |
This is a corporate route, not a complete list of operating subsidiaries or a promise that every local licence or brand is held by the same entity. The IGT products, brands and subsidiaries guide deals with that separate question.
Control is not identical to economic ownership
The structure also uses Voyager TopCo GP, LLC, the general partner associated with the TopCo partnership. The disclosed control route includes AP X Voyager VoteCo, LLC. That separation matters: a partnership can allocate economic returns through one set of arrangements while its general partner and related voting vehicles exercise management or governance powers through another.
The ownership record includes a 26 June 2025 Nevada disclosure under which David Benjamin Sambur was associated with 51% and Daniel Evan Cohen with 49% of the ownership of AP X Voyager VoteCo, LLC. Those percentages describe that named VoteCo vehicle. They do not establish Sambur's personal ownership of 51% or Cohen's personal ownership of 49% of Voyager TopCo, Voyager Parent or the whole IGT operating business.
| Question | Correct level of evidence | What would be misleading |
|---|---|---|
| Who receives the group-level economic interest? | Dated Voyager TopCo participation disclosure | Copying a VoteCo split into the group cap table |
| Which company controls management through the partnership? | General-partner and VoteCo legal documents | Assuming every economic investor has equal voting rights |
| Who is the ultimate individual beneficial owner? | Verified, complete ownership chain and applicable disclosures | Assigning a corporate percentage to a natural person without tracing intermediate interests |
| Who runs day-to-day gaming operations? | Dated executive appointments | Treating fund governance holders as the supplier's operating CEO |
The arrangement can be described at these disclosed levels, but a complete current private-company beneficial-owner and voting-rights reconciliation is not established in the public disclosures reviewed. That is an evidence limitation, not evidence of undisclosed wrongdoing.
Apollo and De Agostini: two different investor roles
Apollo-related funds supplied the acquisition framework for the combination. The July 2024 agreement replaced an earlier proposal to combine Everi and the old IGT gaming operations through a different transaction structure. The acquisitions closed in July 2025, producing one privately held gaming and financial-technology supplier. Apollo's presence is relevant to capital allocation, board oversight and eventual investment exit possibilities, but no exit date is established by the transaction alone.
De Agostini's minority economic role has a different historical origin. The Italian investment group was a significant shareholder in the former listed IGT context and participated economically in the new structure. Regulatory records also discuss representation and control arrangements involving the new holding companies. Those facts do not convert historical PLC shares into freely traded interests in Voyager.
My reading is that the partnership combines a controlling private-equity sponsor with an investor that already understood parts of the gaming assets' history. This is an interpretation of the disclosed structure, not a promise that their incentives are identical or that either investor can act without regard to contractual governance rights.
For readers comparing publicly quoted financial instruments, private Voyager equity should not be confused with the former PLC, the old Everi ticker or listed Apollo-manager shares. Our IGT shares and listing explanation deals with that market-identity issue.
Who leads the private IGT?
Operating management must be separated from investment-fund control. At the July 2025 closing, Nick Khin was identified publicly as interim CEO of the combined enterprise. The plan was for Hector Fernandez to take the senior operating role after his then-applicable transition period. This was not simply a change of a nameplate: the merged business brought together Gaming, Digital and FinTech operations that had previously sat in different corporate structures.
On 3 December 2025, IGT announced that Fernandez had officially joined the company. The company communicated his expected assumption of the combined enterprise's CEO role following required regulatory approvals. Subsequent company material and a September 2026 executive announcement describe him as Chief Executive Officer. On that later public baseline, treating Fernandez as IGT's CEO is supportable; treating Nick Khin's earlier interim title as permanent is not.
| Person | Role or relationship | Important date and qualification |
|---|---|---|
| Hector Fernandez | CEO of private IGT in later issuer communications | Joined December 2025; distinguish joining date from originally conditional assumption of office |
| Nick Khin | Interim CEO at transaction closing; gaming leadership and other roles at different dates | Interim description established on 1 July 2025, not a present CEO label |
| Gil Rotem | Senior leader associated with IGT's Digital business | Digital remit and UK directorship are not group-wide chief executive authority |
| Fabio Celadon | CFO during the initial combined-group period | September 2026 succession announcement described continued CFO service through 31 October |
| Adam Chibib | Announced successor as CFO | Appointment announced 14 September 2026 for 1 November, subject to required regulatory approvals |
These roles are not interchangeable. A unit president can run a major operation without being the legal chief executive of every subsidiary. A UK company director can have statutory duties in that company without becoming an owner of its global parent. Nor should an old PLC board biography be carried across the transaction without a fresh dated appointment.
Adam Chibib and the CFO succession
The 14 September 2026 IGT announcement said Adam Chibib had been appointed to become Chief Financial Officer effective 1 November 2026, subject to receipt of required regulatory approvals. The statement said Fabio Celadon would remain CFO through 31 October 2026 and then serve in an advisory capacity through 31 December 2026.
IGT announced Chibib’s appointment for 1 November 2026 subject to required regulatory approvals. The disclosures reviewed do not independently confirm completion of every condition, so he is identified here as the announced incoming CFO under the September plan.
This distinction protects the reader from a common weakness in executive directories: a future effective date is silently converted into a completed fact merely because the calendar has advanced. For a private and regulated supplier, the regulatory condition is substantive, not decorative.
What is known about management breadth?
IGT presents Gaming, Digital and FinTech as complementary businesses. Its executive arrangements therefore span more than machine manufacturing. Gaming requires product strategy and venue relationships; Digital manages content, platform distribution and integration; FinTech brings financial-access and compliance-related services. A group CEO coordinates them, but the individuals named in business-unit announcements may have narrower reporting mandates.
The public record does not establish every current committee membership, all delegated authorities or an exhaustive November 2026 management chart. I would not reconstruct one from legacy names, search snippets or a mix of biographies published before and after the acquisition. A useful executive table should identify person, specific legal or operating role, source date and any condition.
Did Si Redd found today's IGT?
William ‘Si’ Redd is properly associated with the founding heritage of the historical gaming-machine business. The lineage is usually traced to the operation he began in 1975, which developed through names including A-1 Supply and Sircoma before the IGT identity became widely known. That history explains the long-standing industrial reputation of the gaming brand.
It does not mean Redd founded Voyager Parent, LLC in 1975. Voyager is a much more recent legal structure associated with the Apollo-era transaction, and Everi brought its own separate predecessor businesses into the combined enterprise. Describing Redd as the founder of today's exact consolidated legal parent erases those transactions and the additional corporate ancestry.
There are at least three distinct things a reader might mean by ‘IGT founder’: the founder of a historical gaming-equipment predecessor, the company whose shares once carried the IGT ticker, or the sponsors of the new privately owned business. Those answers belong to different dates and legal identities. Our IGT history page explores the earlier milestones without conflating them with current ownership.
What UK company records can and cannot tell us
UK Companies House filings are particularly useful for checking whether a company exists, who its statutory directors are, and which persons with significant control (PSCs) are recorded for that particular UK entity. They are less useful if a reader expects an automatically complete worldwide private-equity cap table from one local subsidiary's register.
The transaction changed PSC-related filings for UK companies as older PLC-linked control ceased and new influences were recorded around 1 July 2025. These changes help corroborate the corporate transition. They do not disclose every natural person's look-through economic share in Voyager TopCo, nor do they prove that a director personally owns the assets held by the company.
For example, identifying IGT-UK Gaming Limited or IGT UK Interactive Limited in a statutory filing should prompt a question about the specific legal entity and its parent chain. A directorship of the latter cannot be used to assign control of the entire group. Likewise, regulatory approval for an ownership change in one state should not be treated as evidence that every jurisdiction has identical controls or that all later licences remain in the same status.
This is why the page distinguishes three source classes: a group-level economic ownership disclosure, governance-vehicle documents and entity-specific director or PSC records. Each answers a different question. Our IGT markets and licences analysis addresses the jurisdictional dimension.
What the ownership structure means for the business
The combination creates a governance structure in which large investment sponsors, minority economic participants and professional managers have related but distinct interests. It may support acquisitions, investment in technology or changes in operational discipline. But private ownership also limits the quantity and frequency of information that an outside analyst can independently access compared with a conventional listed company.
In my view, readers should focus on who can exercise control, who bears economic exposure and who is accountable for operating decisions. A familiar corporate logo is insufficient. So is one name in a directors' register or an attractive management biography. The practical questions concern voting arrangements, board governance, reporting accountability, capital allocation and the outcomes of integration.
The available evidence supports a sponsor-controlled private group with a material De Agostini-related minority economic stake and an identifiable executive team. It does not establish a fully reconciled, real-time beneficial-ownership schedule, a public market valuation for private IGT equity or an unconditional completion record for every announced personnel change. Those limits should accompany any investment or governance analysis, not be concealed in footnotes.
For implications of private ownership, debt and operational integration, see our IGT risks and opportunities page.
Final assessment
IGT is owned through the Voyager structure established for Apollo-affiliate-managed funds' acquisition of Gaming & Digital and Everi, with De Agostini-related minority economic participation at TopCo. The reported 88.66% / 11.33% split describes a dated economic snapshot, while the 51% / 49% VoteCo disclosure concerns a separate governance vehicle. Hector Fernandez leads the operating business in subsequent issuer communications; earlier interim titles and conditional appointment announcements must remain dated. That is the most reliable way to answer who owns and runs IGT without confusing a brand, a public fund manager, a private holding company and the people working inside it.