Australia: Credit Card Use For All Gambling To Be Banned

New laws have been passed in the Australian House of Representatives on Tuesday to extend the ban on credit card use for online gambling. The ban, which was previously limited to physical gambling locations such as casinos, will now encompass websites and gambling apps. The legislation aims to address concerns raised by a joint inquiry into gambling reform and has received bipartisan support.

In recent years, there has been a growing concern about the impact of gambling addiction on individuals and their families. The accessibility and convenience of online gambling platforms has led to lawmakers calling for stricter regulations. The joint inquiry into gambling reform, established under the previous Morrison government, made several recommendations to address these concerns. One of the key recommendations was the extension of the existing ban on credit card use at physical gambling venues to also include online platforms.

The new laws passed by the House of Representatives seek to extend the ban on credit card use for gambling to online platforms. This means that punters will no longer be able to use their credit cards to place bets on websites or through gambling apps. The ban also includes digital currencies such as cryptocurrency, closing any potential loopholes that may have allowed for alternative forms of payment.

To ensure compliance with the ban on credit card use, the legislation empowers the media watchdog to enforce the new laws. Companies that fail to enforce the ban could face substantial fines, with penalties exceeding $234,000. This strict enforcement mechanism aims to deter gambling operators from disregarding the ban and to create a safer gambling environment for consumers.

Recognizing the need for a transitional period, the legislation allows for a six-month window for banks and gambling companies to implement the necessary changes. This timeframe enables these entities to adjust their systems and processes to comply with the ban on credit card use. During this period, clear guidelines and support will be provided to ensure a smooth transition and minimize disruption for both operators and consumers.

The extension of the credit card ban to online gambling platforms has significant implications for consumers. By removing the option to use credit cards for gambling, the legislation aims to prevent individuals from accumulating excessive debt and protect vulnerable individuals from falling into gambling addiction. It promotes responsible gambling practices by encouraging punters to only use funds they actually have available, rather than relying on credit.

The new laws also have implications for gambling operators, who will need to adapt their payment systems to comply with the credit card ban. This may involve implementing new payment methods that exclude credit cards or partnering with alternative payment providers to offer secure and responsible gambling options. While these changes may require initial investment and adjustment, operators have the opportunity to enhance their reputation as responsible providers and attract a more conscientious customer base.

The passing of the new gambling reform laws in the House of Representatives has generally been well-received by the public, who view it as a positive step towards curbing gambling addiction. However, there has been some opposition and attempts to amend the legislation by the opposition and crossbenchers. Despite these efforts, the laws were passed with bipartisan support, indicating a broad consensus on the need for stronger regulations in the gambling industry.

Amazon Sued Over Claim That It Offers Illegal Casino Apps

e-commerce giant Amazon, is facing a proposed consumer class-action lawsuit accusing the company of operating an “illegal internet gambling enterprise.”

The lawsuit, filed by a Nevada resident who claims to have been addicted to illegal online slot games, alleges that Amazon distributed over 30 illegal casino-style apps to consumers, thereby engaging in a “dangerous partnership” with virtual casinos. The complaint cites a 2018 U.S. appeals court ruling that declared “social casino” apps illegal under Washington state gambling law. This case is just one among many targeting online gambling platforms.

According to the lawsuit, Amazon and social casinos have found a way to bring slot machines into the homes of consumers throughout the United States, operating 24/7, 365 days a year. The games in question are free to play and do not offer cash payouts. Instead, users can win virtual chips and are encouraged to buy more to continue playing. However, despite the knowledge that social casinos are deemed illegal, Amazon allegedly maintains a 30% financial interest in these apps by brokering slot machine games, driving customers to them, and acting as the bank.

Social casino apps has led to a series of legal challenges and debates surrounding their classification and regulation. In 2022, a California federal judge ruled that Apple, Meta (formerly Facebook), and Google could be held liable for processing payments related to virtual chips used in social casino apps. This decision has sparked appeals from these tech giants, with the cases still pending in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The outcome of these appeals will have significant implications for the future of the online gambling industry.

The class-action lawsuit against Amazon seeks damages, restitution, and other court orders on behalf of “tens of thousands of consumers.” The plaintiffs’ law firm, Edelson, has a track record of securing substantial settlements in similar litigation related to virtual casino apps. Todd Logan, who leads Edelson’s gambling practice, expressed his anticipation for trying the case before a jury of Amazon’s peers. The outcome of this lawsuit may set a precedent for future legal battles involving online gambling platforms and their partnerships.

DraftKings Contemplated 888 Holdings Takeover

 American sports betting giant DraftKings had considered a takeover of 888 Holdings amid the struggles experienced by the latter company. While the former company has not yet approached 888 with a takeover proposal, it mulled over the possibility and discussed the matter with 888 shareholders.

According to a report by the Financial Times, DraftKings considered the takeover attempt during this summer. The financial news outlet also pointed out that the gambling company had engaged in preliminary discussions about the acquisition.

In June and July, Jason Robins, DraftKings’ chief executive officer, met with representatives of FS Gaming, a major 888 shareholder. Robins reportedly discussed the takeover with FS Gaming, inquiring about the possibility of an all-stock takeover of 888 Holdings.

The talks happened around the same time 888 Holdings was on the lookout for a new chief executive officer. For reference, that position was recently taken by Per Widerström who departed from a number of NED positions to dedicate all of his time to 888.

Financial analysts believe that 888 Holdings’ precarious position makes it an ideal target for takeover attempts. In addition to its slumping share price and management and business challenges, the company had to deal with regulatory complications and a review of its license.

As a result, the Financial Times believes that DraftKings could have theoretically acquired 888 Holdings for roughly $676.9 million, based on its market capitalization at the time.

However, 888 Holdings’ massive outstanding net debt could have been a problem, according to analysts. For reference, earlier this year the company acquired the British gambling giant William Hill from Caesars Entertainment.

DraftKings’ consideration of a takeover aligns with the company’s overall expansion strategy.

In the meantime, DraftKings published its financial results for the third quarter of 2023. The company posted revenue of $790 million for the period, which attests to the success of its business strategy.

As a result of its strong Q3 results, DraftKings updated its FY 2023 guidance and is now expecting full-year revenue in the range of $4.5-4.8 billion.

The favorable results were attributed to the company’s launch in a number of new jurisdictions. The new launches are also expected to have a positive effect on the company’s adjusted EBITDA for 2023.

Speaking of launches in new jurisdictions, the company recently went live in Maine, enjoying a stellar launch during the first weekend of regulated sports betting in the state.

Spain’s gambling prevalence study raises questions on effective protections

Spain’s Ministry of Consumer Affairs has published the findings of its “Prevalence Study of Gambling on the General Public of Spain”.

The study was presented to public health and welfare stakeholders who form part of the Responsible Gambling Advisory Council. The council is charged with developing safer gambling policies to protect Spanish consumers from gambling harms.

Research was conducted using 20,000 customised surveys throughout Spain’s 17 autonomous communities –  with each providing ‘a sample selected for its representativeness through a random procedure’.

The Ministry states that the research questions were designed by the scientific Unit of the Responsible Gaming Advisory Council. Gambling prevalence data aims to reflect the Spanish public’s perspectives on variables such as channel, type of player, age, and gaming segment when engaging with gambling activities (retail and online). 

The study further offers an analysis of risks associated with various gambling products and player segments. It also presents observations on social and economic characteristics that impact prevalence and potential harms.

Regarding public demographics of gambling, the study estimates that approximately half (49.5%) of Spain’s population (47.5 million) engages in gambling. Of these, 97% gamble in person and 6.6% online.

The Spanish lotteries of Once and SELAE recorded the highest engagement, with 81% of respondents stating that “they only play lotteries.”

Online gambling (excluding lotteries) predominantly attracts male players, with 73% of Spanish male players participating, whereas 52% of Spanish female gamblers stated they only play lotteries.

Across Spanish provinces, the highest penetration of online gambling was observed among male players aged 26-to-35 (23.7%) and 35-to-45 (23.2%).

The youngest demographic segment, those aged 18-to-25, mainly engage in online gambling services, reflecting broader shifts in digital consumer habits.

Providing a breakdown of “public engagements,” the study reports that sports betting (31%) and lotteries (27%) are the product segments with the highest weekly frequency (more than twice a week).

On public protections, prevalence data suggests that gambling in Spain is generally moderate and responsible, with the majority of players spending less than one hour a week and less than €50 per month on gambling activities (retail or online). 

Spanish online gambling trade body, Jdigital, responded to the prevalence study’s findings: “We believe that the Ministry of Consumer Affairs boasts of regulating based on science. However, from our perspective, over the past four years, the Ministry has first regulated and then presented data to justify its legislation.”

Reflecting on the study’s headline finding that only 6.6% of Spanish gamblers play online, Jdigital questions the Ministry of Consumer Affairs’ “apparent demonisation of the online gambling sector.” 

In H1, the Spanish government approved the Ministry’s “Royal Decree on Responsible Gaming Environments”. This mandate will ensure that Spanish gambling adopts the strictest surveillance of gambling operators and market activities within Europe by 2024.

Jdigital questions why the Ministry continues to overlook its membership concerns about black market infringements targeting national consumers.

“We are concerned about the limited awareness regarding the differences between legal and illegal gambling, as highlighted in the Online Player in Spain report by Jdigital in 2022. 

Furthermore, we are surprised that the report from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs presents such low illegal gambling data, especially considering the high number of websites that are shut down each year.”

Currently, the Spanish regulator DGOJ is undergoing a stakeholder consultation on how to implement the protections of the Ministry’s decree. This includes considerations regarding deposit limits, record-keeping, player registries, and enforcing in-play restrictions on high-risk games.

Tonali bet on football, including Milan: He faces a one-year ban

La Gazzetta dello Sport report that Sandro Tonali has confirmed he bet on football matches, including those featuring AC Milan. The midfielder is one of three high profile names involved in the betting scandal, along with Nicolo Fagioli and Nicolo Zaniolo.

Juve’s Fagioli was handed a seven-month ban yesterday, having admitted to placing bets on illegal gambling platforms, but never having gambled on Juventus matches.

La Gazzetta write a lengthy article this morning concerning the outcome of Tonali’s meeting with the public prosecutor yesterday afternoon:

“Sandro Tonali is repentant and has already begun to make his contribution to the investigation into the betting case. He said so yesterday at the Turin Public Prosecutor’s Office, in an interrogation that lasted almost three hours, but he had also declared it last Sunday when he was heard for the first time by the Federal Prosecutor’s Office. Giuseppe Chinè (FIGC prosecutor) met him at a secret location and he told the whole truth. So the former AC Milan player self-reported to the sports justice body and certainly admitted that he had also bet on football-otherwise under what is the Code of Sports Justice there would be no violation-but he would also have confessed to making bets on AC Milan. And here the issue is different and definitely more delicate.

“Betting on one’s own team is particularly risky because it could constitute the crime of illicit sports betting. The article of the Code that regulates it, number 30, is clear and speaks of “performing, by any means, acts aimed at altering the course or result of a match or competition.” From what emerges, however, this would not be the case for Tonali. The player now at Newcastle would in fact have bet on Milan winning or at any rate on other results with him absent. In short, his bets would not have in any way affected his performance on the field, so no sports offence. At the moment, the violation charged against Tonali therefore remains within the enclosure of Article 24 of the Code of Sports Justice, the one that punishes players who bet on football (minimum penalty three years), but it is clear that having bet on Milan constitutes an aggravating circumstance.

“The midfielder would like to follow the path taken by Fagioli, with a plea bargain in a short time frame (even less than a month), but there are clearly differences. The first is that if the bets on the Rossoneri were confirmed, the initial sanction of the Prosecutor’s Office would necessarily be more than three years. Verisimilarly it could be three and a half or four, a penalty automatically halved with the predeferral plea bargain. Thus, since the boy has already shown cooperation, he could enjoy some mitigating factors like Fagioli. Hypothesizing the final sanction today is difficult, but one can think of 12 months of disqualification on the field and 6 of alternative prescriptions like the Juventus player, given that Tonali has also claimed to be suffering from ludopathy. Certainly it will be crucial that the version of the former Rossoneri player provided to Chinè coincides perfectly with what will emerge from the records of the Turin prosecutor’s office, who seized his phone and tablet Thursday at Coverciano. If something does not match, things would change, and depending on the findings, the penalty could increase even by a lot.

“The timeframe for the plea bargain-if there are no surprises-could be quite short, given as well that the Federation has already defined for Fagioli the path of alternative punishments: therapy to defeat ludopathy and a series of meetings decided by the Federation to make these guys examples in a positive way, to show especially young people that gambling can be the ruin of a career and more.”

Nicolò Fagioli banned for seven months over gambling offence

The Juventus midfielder Nicolò Fagioli has been handed a seven-month ban as part of a settlement with the Italian football federation (FIGC) after breaching rules surrounding betting on matches, the governing body said on Tuesday.

Fagioli was banned for 12 months, of which five months were suspended, and fined €12,500 (£10,843). He has also agreed to a treatment programme for gambling problems. The 22-year-old has been placed under investigation by prosecutors in Turin for allegedly betting on illegal websites.

Under FIGC rules, a player found to have bet on matches could have been banned for at least three years but Fagioli has had more lenient treatment after admitting his offence to the authorities.

As part of his punishment, he will have to speak of his experiences in at least 10 sessions with amateur sporting organisations and with groups helping gambling addicts.

Fagioli has made one appearance for Italy but is not in the squad for the current round of international games.

Sandro Tonali and Nicolò Zaniolo left the national team’s headquarters last week after they were also told they were involved in an investigation by prosecutors.

Tonali’s agent, Beppe Riso, said on Tuesday that his client had a gambling addiction and was sad and in shock at how matters had unfolded. Riso said the 23-year-old was determined to overcome the problem and thanked Newcastle for their support. He said Tonali could feature against Crystal Palace on Saturday.

Juventus' Nicolo Fagioli faces illegal betting investigation

Juventus midfielder Nicolo Fagioli is under investigation for alleged illegal betting activities, a prosecutor said on Wednesday, confirming earlier press reports.

La Stampa daily said the 22-year-old is involved in a criminal probe targeting users of illegal online betting platforms, along with other unnamed suspects.

"I confirm the news of the investigation," Turin Chief Prosecutor Enrica Gabetta said in an emailed statement, without elaborating.

The newspaper did not say what kind of betting Fagioli was involved in. Italian football authorities ban players from betting on matches but not from other types of gambling.

The prosecutor's office of the Italian football federation (FIGC) is also looking into Fagioli's case, a source close to the matter said, confirming another part of the La Stampa report.

A player found to have bet on football matches risks being disqualified for at least three years and fined at least €25,000 ($26,517.50) under the FIGC's code of conduct.

Juventus declined to comment on the affair. Attempts to reach Fagioli via social media messages were not immediately successful.

Fagioli has played in six of Juve's eight Serie A matches this season. Last November he made his debut for Italy, coming on as a substitute in a 3-1 away friendly win against Albania.

Asian-facing gambling operator 6686, the sleeve sponsor of Wolverhampton Wanderers and official betting partner of Wolfsburg, Lazio and AS Monaco, is illegally streaming live games from the Premier League, the Bundesliga, Serie A, Ligue 1 and a number of other competitions on its Chinese language website

Do you want to watch the best that European club football has to offer for free? This is easy. All it takes is to switch on a VPN (Virtual Private Network), choose Hong Kong as a location and head for 6686.com. Three clicks later, it’s all there.

On the right of the screen, a blue “play” button icon indicates which games can be watched live on the bookmaker’s website. It is almost all of them. The pictures originate from legitimate broadcasters such as Telemundo, Setanta, Arena Sport and others, but also directly, it seems, from the raw international video feeds which the Premier League, the Bundesliga and other European leagues provide to their rights-holders, and which must have been captured straight from the satellites beaming the precious video content to legal broadcasters.

This would explain the startling quality and clarity of the picture, a world away from the shaky illegal streams which many frustrated or impoverished sports fans share online. There is hardly any buffering. When there is, the 6686.com logo spins for just a few seconds before the image stabilises and offers the kind of viewing comfort which could be expected from a legitimate broadcaster such as Sky Sports, Canal + or TNT. The delay with the live action is no greater than what is usually experienced when using the online versions of those legal platforms.

The problem is that 6686.com has not acquired the streaming rights of any of the competitions it shows on its Chinese website. It has not paid any compensation to the networks who spent tens, sometimes hundreds of millions for the privilege of showing live action from the world’s top leagues to their subscribers. 6686’s video offering is 100 percent illegal. It is piracy on a mind-boggling scale, as it is not just the top five European leagues which can be watched on 6686.com, as long as the site is accessed from outside the United Kingdom.

In the course of a single afternoon, we were able to access on 6686.com live streams of games played in the Premier League, both divisions of the Bundesliga, La Liga, Serie A, Ligue 1, the Dutch Eredivisie, the Belgian Jupiler League, the Portuguese Primeira Liga, the EFL Championship, the Czech First League, the Turkish SüperLig, the Polish Ekstraklasa, the Swiss Super League, the Saudi Pro League, the Austrian Bundesliga and even the Ukrainian second division and the Indian Super League. It would be much quicker, in fact, to list the competitions which are not streamed live on the bookmaker’s website. Moreover, what goes for football goes for other sports, such as baseball, tennis or basketball. The scale of the operation beggars belief.

No registration process or password are required to access the streams. No subscription is necessary. No fee is charged to the viewers. No advertising pop-ups suddenly appear on the screen. Full-screen vision is available for all streams. Were it legitimate, this would be the go-to website for all football fans; but legitimate it is not.

Despite its official partnerships with well-known European clubs and the licence granted by the UK Gambling Commission via White Label company TGP Europe, 6686.com is one of a myriad illegal Asian gambling operators which cater almost exclusively to customers from Far Eastern countries where gambling on sports is illegal and may even lead to criminal prosecution.

Until now, the Premier League has chosen to turn a blind eye to the proliferation of partnership and sponsorship deals between its clubs and ‘questionable’ Asian-facing gambling operators. But the Premier League is also known to be much more reactive when it comes to breaches of copyright and piracy of its precious product. In May of this year, following an investigation launched by the Premier League, five British individuals were prosecuted and sentenced to a total of thirty years and seven months in jail for running three pirate streaming operations from the UK. Yet what kind of action the world’s most popular league could take in this case is unclear, as the opacity surrounding 6686.com is complete.

No-one – and this includes 6686’s partners Wolves, Wolfsburg, Lazio and Monaco, as well as the UK Gambling Commission and the Premier League itself – is aware of the identity of the operator’s ultimate beneficial owners, and the bewildering multiplicity of mirror websites it uses to trawl for punters makes it almost impossible to shut them all down.

To complicate things even further, though TGP Europe has registered the domain name 6686.co.uk with the UK Gambling Commission, it is 6686sports.co.uk which the Isle of Man-based company lists as its partner on its own website, where it is described as “the official sleeve sponsor and Asian betting partner of Wolverhampton Wanderers”. So 6686sports.co.uk is 6686.com? It is indeed.

Further proof of it is provided by using a UK internet network with no VPN and, instead of typing 6686.com, using the different URL which the Asian-facing website redirects to by default. Normally, with no VPN, an error message would appear on the screen, telling the UK visitor that the website they’re trying to reach is geo-blocked; but not this time. This visitor is automatically redirected to 6686sports.co.uk. The loop is complete.

It should be added that 6686sports.co.uk is not a going concern. The web analysis tool SimilarWeb shows that their website received a mere 2,000 visits in the month of August, fewer than most genuine gambling operators would get in a matter of minutes. It is a means to acquire legitimacy by association, thanks to the stamp of approval given by a UK government agency. The real action is elsewhere, with 6686.com, the brand which was also advertised in the stadiums of Leicester City and Nottingham Forest in England last season.

As to 6686.co.uk, the only brand name actually registered by TGP Europe with the UKGC, it does not even exist as a functioning website. Typing it in any browser leads to the domain name broker GoDaddy, where it is suggested that 6686.co.uk can be purchased via an agent who will only charge a little over 50 pounds for their work.

There is no indication that the 6686.com which pirates football streams from all over the world is a different entity from the 6686.com which paid millions to become the official partner of Wolves, Monaco, Lazio and Wolfsburg. A rogue operator is not, somehow, impersonating the real bookmaker. The truth is that a ‘grey market’ – in plain English, illegal – bookmaker which was deemed worthy of a UK licence and managed to become the “official Asian betting partner” of four famous European clubs has been and still is stealing the most valuable product which these clubs and their leagues have to offer: live footage of their matches.

FA accused of ‘double standard’ in allowing club owners to bet on football while banning players

The Football Association is facing claims of double standards after an investigation revealed that the owner of a Premier League club may have benefited from bets on the game placed in his own name.

The disclosures involve Matthew Benham, the owner of the Premier League club Brentford FC, whose star striker, Ivan Toney, is serving an eight-month suspension for breaking the FA’s strict gambling rules.

Benham is one of a select few multimillionaire club owners who enjoy an opaque arrangement with the FA that allows them to be involved in betting. There's evidence that appears to show that Benham has made money from bets on football placed in his own name, via a UK-based gambling syndicate called MSPP Admin. Benham said he abides by all FA betting rules.

The governing body prohibits anyone involved in football from betting on any match, anywhere in the world, under laws designed to protect the integrity of the sport, resulting in tough penalties for footballers, including the England striker Toney.

The FA is now facing calls to reveal the full terms of its deal with the owners, which has been in place for a decade. Other proprietors that the FA allows to run a betting business while owning a football club include the Coates family behind Bet365 and Stoke City, and the Brighton owner Tony Bloom. There is no suggestion that any of them have benefited from bets placed in their own name.

The association, which oversees all football in England, has consistently refused to give full details of exemptions given to some football club owners but has said that anyone with a “significant interest” in a football club must not be “directly involved” in activity such as setting odds or placing bets.

Information raises questions about the nature of Benham’s involvement in football bets.

Benham is the majority funder and beneficiary of MSPP Admin, a tiny, London-based company that bets in the UK and in Hong Kong, where it does so via private counterparties – people willing to take the other side of a bet.

Such syndicates pool money invested by multiple bettors and adopt a unified betting strategy to maximise returns. MSPP Admin is understood to have placed bets on behalf of Benham and other unnamed individuals.

The chair of the west London club, Cliff Crown, is listed as one of two co-owners of MSPP Admin, along with the former Brentford director and longtime Benham friend and business associate Philip Whall.

According to evidence, some of the wagers are placed in Benham’s own name.

Separate evidence shows that MSPP Admin placed frequent bets on football matches around the world in its own company name, some as recently as autumn 2022. None was on matches in the UK.

Typically, MSPP Admin bets via exchanges, companies that charge a fee to match someone placing a bet with someone else happy to take the other side of it.

The FA is understood to have made inquiries about whether Benham placed bets in his name within the UK. However, there is no suggestion that the syndicate has bet on Brentford, the Premier League or competitions in which the club is involved.

A spokesperson for Benham said: “Matthew Benham, alongside other club owners who have a financial interest in a betting company, is subject to an FA policy which, if abided by, ensures that their betting companies may continue to bet on football.

“In particular, those the policy applies to must not, among other things, have any direct involvement in setting odds or placing bets on football or pass on any inside information. This policy has been in place for almost a decade.

“Matthew fully complies with this FA policy. He abides by all its conditions and restrictions and is also subject to regular third-party audits to confirm compliance.”

The spokesperson did not respond to questions about whether Benham had profited from bets placed in his own name, nor how this would comply with the FA’s requirement on direct involvement.

The FA updated its betting rules in 2014 to strengthen a regime designed to prevent corruption and protect the integrity of the game. It drew up a policy specifically designed for gambling bosses who own football clubs but has repeatedly refused to publish this policy.

The FA has indicated that “stakeholders” such as leagues and club owners are the only people that need to see the whole document.

Clive Betts MP, who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on football, warned of a double standard in the betting rules and questioned the secrecy surrounding the policy.

“It seems contradictory and very unfair if footballers are being pursued, in many cases quite rightly, but owners who are in a more senior position get away with what appears to be similar activity,” he said. “Transparency is the essence of this. Stakeholders in football are the supporters and they need to know what’s going on.

“The FA has to come clean and tell us what the rules are. If people are complying with the rules, we need to see what the rules are that they’re complying with. I can’t begin to understand why the FA don’t release it [the policy].”

Nick De Marco, a leading sports lawyer who represented Toney over the Brentford striker’s own gambling ban, called on the FA to be transparent about its position on football bosses’ betting.

“It’s been reported for some years now that the FA has an ‘unpublished policy’ exempting certain individuals from their betting rules,” he said.

“I believe it is difficult to justify keeping such a policy secret, assuming it exists, when the FA regularly charges and bans players and others in football for betting in the name of ‘integrity’. Transparency and integrity would suggest that any such policy ought to be published.”

In 2018, the FA lost a battle against the then Bournemouth owner Maxim Demin, after attempting to charge him with multiple counts of breaching betting rules.

Demin’s lawyers successfully argued that he was not subject to the rules because he did not have a role in the club’s day-to-day operations.

However, the FA is understood to have strengthened its guidelines since then to ensure that club owners are covered, even if they do not have an operational role.

Brentford FC’s website describes Benham as having a “significant interest” in the club, the same designation that the FA says governs its betting rules.

A spokesperson for the FA said: “We have a stringent policy in place for any participant who has a significant interest in both a football club and a betting company, which has been approved by the Football Regulatory Authority.

“The policy includes a set of strict conditions and reporting obligations, and expressly prohibits these individuals from having any personal involvement in, or passing on of information related to, the setting of odds, the determining of markets, or the selection or placing of individual bets on football.

“We will always take the appropriate disciplinary action if these rules are breached.”

Football and betting have developed ever closer ties over the past two decades, fuelled by the legalisation of gambling advertising, the rise of the smartphone and the increase in the number of televised games.

That has allowed the game to attract a flood of cash from sponsors, as well as investment from entrepreneurs who have profited from the explosion in online gambling.

Benham previously worked for Tony Bloom, before carving his own path in the world of data-based sports gambling.

The pair reportedly fell out but have each ended up steering their clubs to the Premier League after years in the wilderness, using a data-led approach that is now being adopted by more established and wealthier clubs.

Benham’s business acumen in the statistics and gambling world has allowed him to amass a personal fortune believed to exceed £150m. He is the founder and majority owner of Smartodds, which uses cutting-edge statistical models that clients can use to inform sports betting.

One such client is MSPP Admin, the syndicate of which Benham is the majority member.

Wealth acquired chiefly through betting allowed Benham to buy Brentford in 2012 and fund the club’s rise to the Premier League in 2021, often deploying sophisticated data analysis to steal a march on richer clubs.

In 2014, he also became the majority shareholder of the Danish Superliga side FC Midtjylland.

West Ham's own sponsor Betway reported suspicious activity that prompted FA probe into Lucas Paqueta after spike in bets from near Rio de Janeiro on him to be booked against Aston Villa in March

West Ham's shirt sponsor Betway were responsible for reporting the suspicious betting patterns that caused the collapse of Lucas Paqueta's proposed £85million transfer to Manchester City this week amidst an FA probe into alleged breaches of gambling rules. 

Betway's integrity alert system was triggered by a series of bets they received on the Brazilian midfield player to be booked in West Ham's Premier League match against Aston Villa on 12 March, which they immediately reported to the International Betting Integrity Association (IBIA), a global group of hundreds of bookmakers responsible for policing irregular betting in the gambling industry.

Paqueta was shown a yellow card with 14 minutes remaining of the 1-1 draw at the London Stadium, leaving Betway liable to pay out the winning bets. After receiving the integrity alert the IBIA reported the matter to FIFA who then passed it on the FA, who have begun their own investigation.

The suspicious bets in question are understood to been traced to Paqueta Island in Guanabara Bay, near Rio de Janeiro, which is where Paqueta grew up. Whilst their main offices are in London, Malta, Guernsey and Cape Town, Betway have a market presence in Brazil, where they take a large number of bets on football and Esports in particular.

Although the precise figures remain unknown the volume of money staked on Paqueta to be booked against Aston Villa appears to have been significant as his price to receive a yellow card had collapsed to odds-on before kick-off, despite the fact that he had only been booked three times previously by that stage of the season. The 25-year-old was subsequently booked by Chris Kavanagh for a late challenge on John McGinn, the only booking of the game.

Betway's involvement in reporting the bets may be a source of embarrassment at West Ham and the Premier League, who last season introduced a voluntary ban on gambling sponsorship on the front of shirts that will begin at the start of the 2026/27 campaign. The online gambling company have sponsored West Ham since 2015 in one of the biggest shirt deals in the Premier League outside the Big Six that is due to come to an end in 2025.

The £10million-a-year deal has not been without controversy however, with Betway fined £400,000 by the Gambling Commission last season for inadvertently advertising their products on the Young Hammers page of the club's website in a breach of industry rules.

Betway were also fined £11.6m in March for failing to carry out sufficient affordability checks on their so-called VIP customers who often gamble heavily, although that was not related to West Ham.