Unibet are the latest sports betting operator to strengthen its player protection initiatives by launching an age verification monitor to its English language Twitter feed.
The European sports betting operator announced that its English Twitter followers would be required to enter their date of birth in order to follow the operators Twitter feed, latest news and player promotions.
Unibet management have followed the same player protection initiatives undertaken by UK operators William Hill and Gala Coral, who in September announced that age verification monitors would be implemented throughout their social media channels.
At present Unibet has over 19,000 Twitter followers on its English language twitter account. The operator has launched the new Twitter initiative to coincide with upcoming changes to UK online gambling laws, as Unibet Plc aims to promote responsible gaming and player safety measures throughout its betting operations.
Unibet management confirmed the operator will monitor engagement on social media channels to ensure that the operator does not engage and communicate with underage users.
October 13, 2014
October 09, 2014
Japan casinos could be foreign gamblers only
The Japanese lower house of parliament which is currently debating the casino bill that would allow casino resorts in the country for the first time ever, is now considering to amend the bill to only allow foreigners to enter and not locals.
According to media reports from Japan the chairman of a bipartisan grouping of lawmakers set up to handle the Integrate Resorts Promotion bill suggested it might be watered down to make such resorts for foreigners-only.
It is believed that by doing so would gain the support of minority political parties that are currently opposing the gambling bill. Letting just overseas players in initially would mean there is no risk of gambling related issues such as problem gambling.
However this possibility even in the short to medium term of casino resorts opening would severely impact on international casino operators spending the billions they said they would given that the whole nation on which they have casino resorts are not allowed to enter.
In Singapore where they currently have this model of overseas gamblers only allowed the market is worth $2.7 billion in revenues per year, analysts believe that figure could be four times higher is locals were allowed to gamble.
Should Japan decide to go down the foreign gambler only route all the casino operators some offering $10 billion to build a casino resort would certainly water down those estimates on construction given the lower revenues generated by just overseas gamblers.
According to media reports from Japan the chairman of a bipartisan grouping of lawmakers set up to handle the Integrate Resorts Promotion bill suggested it might be watered down to make such resorts for foreigners-only.
It is believed that by doing so would gain the support of minority political parties that are currently opposing the gambling bill. Letting just overseas players in initially would mean there is no risk of gambling related issues such as problem gambling.
However this possibility even in the short to medium term of casino resorts opening would severely impact on international casino operators spending the billions they said they would given that the whole nation on which they have casino resorts are not allowed to enter.
In Singapore where they currently have this model of overseas gamblers only allowed the market is worth $2.7 billion in revenues per year, analysts believe that figure could be four times higher is locals were allowed to gamble.
Should Japan decide to go down the foreign gambler only route all the casino operators some offering $10 billion to build a casino resort would certainly water down those estimates on construction given the lower revenues generated by just overseas gamblers.
October 08, 2014
Singapore remote gambling bill will ban casino and poker, allow social games
Singapore’s remote gambling bill passed its second reading in Parliament on Tuesday, despite spirited opposition from a group of lawmakers who say the bill’s restrictions don’t go far enough.
The bill, introduced in September, would restrict online gambling to those operators licensed by the state. License eligibility would be limited to Singapore-based operators who contribute a portion of their proceeds to local charitable and/or social causes. The bill also calls for punitive measures against operators of sites not holding a Singapore license, as well as anyone acting as an agent or other promotional capacity for such sites, and even for these sites’ customers.
Second Minister for Home Affairs S. Iswaran (pictured) told Parliament the bill would keep a tight lid on the types of betting licensed operators would be able to offer. Casino-style games and poker were singled out as examples of betting that won’t be tolerated. But Iswaran downplayed fears that the bill’s broad language would restrict Singaporeans’ ability to play online social games, saying such games would not fall within the bill’s scope so long as players “cannot convert in-game credits or tokens for money or real merchandise outside the game.”
Parliamentary critics suggested the government was sending a mixed message by allowing exemptions to the remote gambling ban. Companies like the Singapore Pools sports betting monopoly and its pari-mutuel race betting equivalent Turf Club are expected to apply for new remote gambling licenses. Singapore Pools currently allows remote betting only via telephone while the Turf Club permits wagering via smartphones.
Iswaran referenced both companies as evidence that Singapore knew what it was doing by granting limited exemptions to gambling prohibitions. Iswaran said the bill was introduced “not because we wish to promote it or condone” remote gambling but to maintain “an ecosystem that minimizes the law and order concerns and social consequences.”
Chan Chun Sing, Minister for Social and Family Development, followed up on this point, saying the exemptions for select operators would allow the authorities to monitor player behavior to mitigate potential harms of remote gambling. Chan said it wasn’t so much a question of whether to ban or not ban but determining “the best way for us to manage this very difficult problem.”
Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs Teo Chee Hean has revealed some statistics on how local residents were utilizing the brick-and-mortar casino levy system. Singapore’s two casinos charge local gamblers a S$100 entry levy that is valid for 24 hours. The model has been widely cited by other Asia-Pacific jurisdictions seeking to liberalize their gambling laws as the best way to mitigate the potential social harms of casino gambling.
In response to a question from a fellow parliamentarian, Teo said 8% of all daily entry levies were purchased by Singaporeans looking to extend their casino stay by an additional 24 hours. Teo cautioned that this didn’t automatically mean all 8% had been gambling at the casino for 24 hours non-stop, as the levies permit gamblers to enter and exit the casino at their leisure during that 24-hour window. Teo said the government would continue to monitor levy usage but has no current plans to revise the laws to prohibit such extensions.
The bill, introduced in September, would restrict online gambling to those operators licensed by the state. License eligibility would be limited to Singapore-based operators who contribute a portion of their proceeds to local charitable and/or social causes. The bill also calls for punitive measures against operators of sites not holding a Singapore license, as well as anyone acting as an agent or other promotional capacity for such sites, and even for these sites’ customers.
Second Minister for Home Affairs S. Iswaran (pictured) told Parliament the bill would keep a tight lid on the types of betting licensed operators would be able to offer. Casino-style games and poker were singled out as examples of betting that won’t be tolerated. But Iswaran downplayed fears that the bill’s broad language would restrict Singaporeans’ ability to play online social games, saying such games would not fall within the bill’s scope so long as players “cannot convert in-game credits or tokens for money or real merchandise outside the game.”
Parliamentary critics suggested the government was sending a mixed message by allowing exemptions to the remote gambling ban. Companies like the Singapore Pools sports betting monopoly and its pari-mutuel race betting equivalent Turf Club are expected to apply for new remote gambling licenses. Singapore Pools currently allows remote betting only via telephone while the Turf Club permits wagering via smartphones.
Iswaran referenced both companies as evidence that Singapore knew what it was doing by granting limited exemptions to gambling prohibitions. Iswaran said the bill was introduced “not because we wish to promote it or condone” remote gambling but to maintain “an ecosystem that minimizes the law and order concerns and social consequences.”
Chan Chun Sing, Minister for Social and Family Development, followed up on this point, saying the exemptions for select operators would allow the authorities to monitor player behavior to mitigate potential harms of remote gambling. Chan said it wasn’t so much a question of whether to ban or not ban but determining “the best way for us to manage this very difficult problem.”
Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs Teo Chee Hean has revealed some statistics on how local residents were utilizing the brick-and-mortar casino levy system. Singapore’s two casinos charge local gamblers a S$100 entry levy that is valid for 24 hours. The model has been widely cited by other Asia-Pacific jurisdictions seeking to liberalize their gambling laws as the best way to mitigate the potential social harms of casino gambling.
In response to a question from a fellow parliamentarian, Teo said 8% of all daily entry levies were purchased by Singaporeans looking to extend their casino stay by an additional 24 hours. Teo cautioned that this didn’t automatically mean all 8% had been gambling at the casino for 24 hours non-stop, as the levies permit gamblers to enter and exit the casino at their leisure during that 24-hour window. Teo said the government would continue to monitor levy usage but has no current plans to revise the laws to prohibit such extensions.
October 03, 2014
Bet365 accused of profiteering in Chinese online market
Bet365, the Stoke-based bookmaker whose adverts are fronted by the actor Ray Winstone, has grown into one of the world’s largest online gambling businesses, helped by Chinese punters, who risk prison terms by betting via the group’s website.
The company – which is also known in Britain for funding the Premier League football team Stoke City and for making large donations to the Labour party – has seen a boom in its online betting operations. They are almost three times the size of the internet division of William Hill and more than seven times larger than the online business run by Ladbrokes, as turnover has grown by 78% over the past two years.
However, documents seen by the Guardian, interviews conducted with former and current bet365 employees, Freedom of Information requests made to the UK’s Gambling Commission and an analysis of foreign-language media reports all appear to confirm industry suspicions that the company – which has no physical presence or assets in China – operates one of the most successful online gambling services that can be accessed from inside the country.
China is one of the world’s largest online gambling markets despite the government having outlawed betting in all but a few controlled scenarios. The gambling group says its legal advice is that it has broken no law by taking bets from the country. The Guardian’s evidence suggests that:
• Chinese citizens have been detained for interacting with online betting firms, including four bet365 customers in Jiangxi province arrested after gambling on the group’s website, while two men in Zhejiang were jailed for promoting bet365 on their blogs, according to local media reports.
• Bet365 frequently changes its website addresses in China, thereby side-stepping attempts by local regulators to close sites down.
• The bookmaker has created a large call centre in Stoke staffed by Chinese-speaking workers.
• The company has constructed a complex payments system that allows it to take bets placed using China’s currency, the renminbi.
The Guardian has established that only about half of the £1.3bn the company won from gamblers in 2013 came from countries where bet365 possessed a licence to operate.
While that statistic does not imply the remainder was won from markets with legal restrictions on online gambling, industry analysts say a sizeable portion of the winnings must come from Asia, and principally China.
Bet365’s publicly listed rivals – William Hill, Ladbrokes, Betfair and Paddy Power – all say they do not take online bets from the country.
One former bet365 employee, who confirmed that the company was one of the larger online gambling operators accessible from China, said: “There’s nothing the Chinese government can do about it, other than block the sites, which they do. A lot Chinese[-facing] bookmakers change their domain names on a regular basis.”
Meanwhile, a current bet365 employee confirmed it was “100% true” that bet365 altered website addresses to allow Chinese punters to keep betting when authorities shut down sites. The bet365 sites in question use obscure domain names such as www.28365365.com in their often brief lifespan. He added: “I would say there are 50 [bet365 call centre] advisers just to follow the Chinese customers. China is the biggest department apart from the English [speaking] one”.
The company declined to respond in detail to a series of questions posed to it by the Guardian. In a statement, it said: “Bet365 takes its legal and regulatory obligations very seriously and is licensed to undertake its activities by relevant regulatory authorities across a variety of jurisdictions and is compliant with all applicable legislation.
“There is no legislation that expressly prohibits the supply of remote gambling services into China by operators who are based outside China. Bet365 has no people, assets or infrastructure in China and does not engage any agents, aggregators or intermediaries, for any purpose, in China.
“In the view of bet365, and its lawyers, Chinese law does not extend to the provision of services into China by gambling operators and service providers who themselves have no nexus with the territory. Any allegation of illegality on the part of bet365 is therefore untrue.”
The company added that it does not receive “renminbi from payment processors or otherwise”, and said it was unaware of “anyone in China being prosecuted for using its services”. It also said that in the Jiangxi case – where four bet365 customers were arrested in 2011 – it was “likely” that it had been the victim of a fraud, while in response to reports of two men being jailed in Zhejiang, it said it is the “responsibility of affiliates [who are paid by bet365 for introducing customers] to assess the legal implications”.
In 2005, China published judicial interpretations relating to the existing article 303 of its criminal law, which already stated: “That whoever, for the purpose of reaping profits, assembles a crowd to engage in gambling, opens a gambling house or makes an occupation of gambling is to be sentenced to not more than three years of fixed-term imprisonment, criminal detention or control, in addition to a fine”.
The interpretation added that “whoever, for the purpose of reaping profits, sets up gambling websites on the internet or acts as an online gambling agent will be regarded as ‘opening gambling houses’ and will be punished according to article 303 of the criminal law”.
The interpretation of the law has led many within the gambling industry to take the view that this applies to websites located outside China as well as within, and to avoid China as a market.
Michael Tan, senior counsel based in Shanghai at the international law firm Taylor Wessing, said: “From the perspective of Chinese law, [gambling] is illegal and a criminal offence. However, it is hardly enforceable since the betting company might be beyond the jurisdiction of China. So far China does not have treaties with most western countries, and to extradite is difficult in practice”.
Regulus Partners, a gambling industry consultancy firm, said there was very little visibility as to the true size of the Chinese betting market. However, it estimates that the Chinese market generates annual winnings for bookmakers of about £13.9bn – of which about £3bn are placed directly with gambling websites and the rest via third parties who collect bets on the ground and then pass the bets on to bookmakers. On those figures, a 3% share of the Chinese market, for instance, would provide a gambling company with annual winnings of around £400m.
The Guardian’s analysis of bet365’s revenue streams comes as the UK gambling industry began a new regulatory regime on 1 October, whereby operators pay a licence fee to the Gambling Commission in order to operate in the UK.
Under the new UK licensing regime, operators deriving more than 3% of revenues from distinct international markets must disclose details of those businesses to the regulator, and provide a legal opinion justifying operations in those foreign markets.
The bookmaker said: “Bet365 Group entities have applied for continuation rights as required by the [new UK] licensing regime and, when doing so, shared with the Gambling Commission the legal bases underpinning the business derived from all the group’s material markets”.
Betting companies will also need a licence if they want to advertise on Premier League shirts and in football stadiums, an activity that has surged in recent seasons as English football games are broadcast around the world.
Separately, the Stoke-based bookmaker announced on Monday that it would be relocating its international betting businesses from Britain to Gibraltar, operating under licences granted by the government of Gibraltar and making the company the last of the big UK betting companies to move offshore. The firm’s gaming business has operated from Gibraltar since 2007.
Apart from its online gambling business, bet365 Group also owns Stoke City, and has covered losses at the club to the tune of £49m over the past four years. Its logo is seen all over the world each weekend as it is the sponsor of the team’s jerseys.
As well as supporting the local football team, the company and its subsidiaries also gave £330,000 to the Labour Party between 2007 and 2010, according to Electoral Commission records.
Peter Coates, the Stoke City chairman, co-owner of bet365 and father of the business’s founder, Denise, has personally donated £160,000 between 2004 and 2012.
The company – which is also known in Britain for funding the Premier League football team Stoke City and for making large donations to the Labour party – has seen a boom in its online betting operations. They are almost three times the size of the internet division of William Hill and more than seven times larger than the online business run by Ladbrokes, as turnover has grown by 78% over the past two years.
However, documents seen by the Guardian, interviews conducted with former and current bet365 employees, Freedom of Information requests made to the UK’s Gambling Commission and an analysis of foreign-language media reports all appear to confirm industry suspicions that the company – which has no physical presence or assets in China – operates one of the most successful online gambling services that can be accessed from inside the country.
China is one of the world’s largest online gambling markets despite the government having outlawed betting in all but a few controlled scenarios. The gambling group says its legal advice is that it has broken no law by taking bets from the country. The Guardian’s evidence suggests that:
• Chinese citizens have been detained for interacting with online betting firms, including four bet365 customers in Jiangxi province arrested after gambling on the group’s website, while two men in Zhejiang were jailed for promoting bet365 on their blogs, according to local media reports.
• Bet365 frequently changes its website addresses in China, thereby side-stepping attempts by local regulators to close sites down.
• The bookmaker has created a large call centre in Stoke staffed by Chinese-speaking workers.
• The company has constructed a complex payments system that allows it to take bets placed using China’s currency, the renminbi.
The Guardian has established that only about half of the £1.3bn the company won from gamblers in 2013 came from countries where bet365 possessed a licence to operate.
While that statistic does not imply the remainder was won from markets with legal restrictions on online gambling, industry analysts say a sizeable portion of the winnings must come from Asia, and principally China.
Bet365’s publicly listed rivals – William Hill, Ladbrokes, Betfair and Paddy Power – all say they do not take online bets from the country.
One former bet365 employee, who confirmed that the company was one of the larger online gambling operators accessible from China, said: “There’s nothing the Chinese government can do about it, other than block the sites, which they do. A lot Chinese[-facing] bookmakers change their domain names on a regular basis.”
Meanwhile, a current bet365 employee confirmed it was “100% true” that bet365 altered website addresses to allow Chinese punters to keep betting when authorities shut down sites. The bet365 sites in question use obscure domain names such as www.28365365.com in their often brief lifespan. He added: “I would say there are 50 [bet365 call centre] advisers just to follow the Chinese customers. China is the biggest department apart from the English [speaking] one”.
The company declined to respond in detail to a series of questions posed to it by the Guardian. In a statement, it said: “Bet365 takes its legal and regulatory obligations very seriously and is licensed to undertake its activities by relevant regulatory authorities across a variety of jurisdictions and is compliant with all applicable legislation.
“There is no legislation that expressly prohibits the supply of remote gambling services into China by operators who are based outside China. Bet365 has no people, assets or infrastructure in China and does not engage any agents, aggregators or intermediaries, for any purpose, in China.
“In the view of bet365, and its lawyers, Chinese law does not extend to the provision of services into China by gambling operators and service providers who themselves have no nexus with the territory. Any allegation of illegality on the part of bet365 is therefore untrue.”
The company added that it does not receive “renminbi from payment processors or otherwise”, and said it was unaware of “anyone in China being prosecuted for using its services”. It also said that in the Jiangxi case – where four bet365 customers were arrested in 2011 – it was “likely” that it had been the victim of a fraud, while in response to reports of two men being jailed in Zhejiang, it said it is the “responsibility of affiliates [who are paid by bet365 for introducing customers] to assess the legal implications”.
In 2005, China published judicial interpretations relating to the existing article 303 of its criminal law, which already stated: “That whoever, for the purpose of reaping profits, assembles a crowd to engage in gambling, opens a gambling house or makes an occupation of gambling is to be sentenced to not more than three years of fixed-term imprisonment, criminal detention or control, in addition to a fine”.
The interpretation added that “whoever, for the purpose of reaping profits, sets up gambling websites on the internet or acts as an online gambling agent will be regarded as ‘opening gambling houses’ and will be punished according to article 303 of the criminal law”.
The interpretation of the law has led many within the gambling industry to take the view that this applies to websites located outside China as well as within, and to avoid China as a market.
Michael Tan, senior counsel based in Shanghai at the international law firm Taylor Wessing, said: “From the perspective of Chinese law, [gambling] is illegal and a criminal offence. However, it is hardly enforceable since the betting company might be beyond the jurisdiction of China. So far China does not have treaties with most western countries, and to extradite is difficult in practice”.
Regulus Partners, a gambling industry consultancy firm, said there was very little visibility as to the true size of the Chinese betting market. However, it estimates that the Chinese market generates annual winnings for bookmakers of about £13.9bn – of which about £3bn are placed directly with gambling websites and the rest via third parties who collect bets on the ground and then pass the bets on to bookmakers. On those figures, a 3% share of the Chinese market, for instance, would provide a gambling company with annual winnings of around £400m.
The Guardian’s analysis of bet365’s revenue streams comes as the UK gambling industry began a new regulatory regime on 1 October, whereby operators pay a licence fee to the Gambling Commission in order to operate in the UK.
Under the new UK licensing regime, operators deriving more than 3% of revenues from distinct international markets must disclose details of those businesses to the regulator, and provide a legal opinion justifying operations in those foreign markets.
The bookmaker said: “Bet365 Group entities have applied for continuation rights as required by the [new UK] licensing regime and, when doing so, shared with the Gambling Commission the legal bases underpinning the business derived from all the group’s material markets”.
Betting companies will also need a licence if they want to advertise on Premier League shirts and in football stadiums, an activity that has surged in recent seasons as English football games are broadcast around the world.
Separately, the Stoke-based bookmaker announced on Monday that it would be relocating its international betting businesses from Britain to Gibraltar, operating under licences granted by the government of Gibraltar and making the company the last of the big UK betting companies to move offshore. The firm’s gaming business has operated from Gibraltar since 2007.
Apart from its online gambling business, bet365 Group also owns Stoke City, and has covered losses at the club to the tune of £49m over the past four years. Its logo is seen all over the world each weekend as it is the sponsor of the team’s jerseys.
As well as supporting the local football team, the company and its subsidiaries also gave £330,000 to the Labour Party between 2007 and 2010, according to Electoral Commission records.
Peter Coates, the Stoke City chairman, co-owner of bet365 and father of the business’s founder, Denise, has personally donated £160,000 between 2004 and 2012.
September 29, 2014
New Jersey Lawmakers Propose Sports Betting Fee For Leagues
Two New Jersey lawmakers are proposing a fee on sports betting that would go to the professional sports leagues. Atlantic County State Sen. Jim Whelan and Assemblyman Vincent Mazzeo released a letter addressed to NBA commissioner Adam Silver thanking him for his comments that sports betting is inevitable.
In the letter, the two state lawmakers proposed a solution to the issue that legalized sports betting may jeopardize the “integrity of the game,” one of the main sports betting concerns expressed by the NCAA and professional leagues. “While we strongly support the legalization of sports betting in New Jersey and the economic benefits it will bring to Atlantic City, we are cognizant that sports leagues like the NBA need the necessary resources to protect the integrity and fairness of games,” the letter dated September 15 states.
The proposal includes a 0.25% fee on the amount wagered, known as the handle, at New Jersey sportsbooks. These funds would go towards creating a “Game Integrity Department” at league offices, according to the letter. Said department will be tasked with investigating suspicious betting patterns and opponents involved in those contests.
The problem may come with enforcing the regulation. How exactly would the State of New Jersey be able to enforce these proposed fees? Sportsbook operators would have to work on the honor system with sports leagues due to the unusual situation of the repeal of the law prohibiting sports gambling without the concurrent implementation of any broad-based state regulations or licensing. It may be a game of catch-up for some time.
It also may not be the only fee paid on New Jersey sports handles. The Internal Revenue Service has a sports betting excise tax of 0.25% on “any wager authorized under the law of the state in which accepted.” The tax may actually be 2% of all sports wagers in New Jersey as state law does not expressly permit the activity.
A New Jersey sports betting court battle created this scenario.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie issued a directive that allows New Jersey racetracks and Atlantic City casinos to offer sports betting. Monmouth Park was the first to announce its launch date. The ambitious racetrack hoped to have sports betting live by September 14. Track officials announced that the goal is now to open by the last weekend in October.
This change of direction is due to a review of Gov. Christie’s order. The legality of this opinion, supported by New Jersey Attorney General John Hoffman, is being considered by a federal judge. A ruling on the case is expected on or around October 17. No other racetracks have announced plans to offer sports betting and Atlantic City casinos have also largely remained silent as to their intentions.
New Jersey lost a federal court battle with five sports leagues and the U.S. Department of Justice when lower courts ruled in favor of the NCAA and professional sports leagues that fought vigorously to uphold federal law that placed a restriction on states allowing sports gambling within their borders (with the exception of a few states grandfathered in for specific types of sports betting in place when the original ban was implemented). The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
New Jersey hopes to have found a loophole to begin offering sports betting despite the state losing in court. “This is not the first time Gov. Christie has expanded gambling in New Jersey to help the struggling industry,” said James Peterson at Legal NJ Online Casino.”In 2013 he also signed a bill into law that regulated online poker and casino games in the state.”
The NCAA and professional sports league plaintiffs asserted, in prior litigation, that the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act prohibits New Jersey from legalizing sports betting. New Jersey argued that the law is unconstitutional on its face.
One point made by the sports leagues was that nothing was stopping New Jersey from repealing its sports betting laws. According to New Jersey Attorney General Hoffman, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. That is the path New Jersey is attempting to take with its most recent push to implement a sport wagering scheme within the state.
This move was contrary to Gov. Christie’s actions in August. He vetoed a bill that was essentially the same as his most recent order on the subject. The bill was sponsored by State Senator Ray Lesniak and passed the Senate 38-1. The Assembly approved it 63-6 with two abstentions. The votes made the bill appear to be veto-proof, but not with Gov. Christie making the final decision on whether the bill became law.
Gov. Christie did not like taking this backdoor approach. “Ignoring federal law, rather than working to reform federal standards, is counter to our democratic traditions and inconsistent with the Constitutional values I have sworn to defend and protect,” he wrote in a veto message at the time.
However, it could be easily argued that Gov. Christie’s new action allowing sports betting at racetracks and Atlantic City casinos does just that.
Monmouth Park appears to be the only venue at the moment that is preparing to roll out sports betting. The Meadowlands Racetrack is on the record as not being interested at this stage. The Meadowlands Racetrack’s neighbor is MetLife MET +0.18% Stadium, home to the NFL’s New York Giants and New York Jets.
New Jersey casinos have more on the line than the sanctity and health of the state’s racetracks. If sports betting is spread to resorts within the state and the sports betting scheme is later found to be contrary to federal law it could create problems with gaming commissions in other jurisdictions where they are licensed or hope to be in the future.
There may not be any reason for Atlantic City casinos to take the risk of implementing sports betting systems until the legal status of Gov. Christie’s order is offered additional clarity. Nevada sportsbooks brought in $202.8 million in 2013. That was just 1.8% of Nevada’s entire gaming revenue in 2013. If New Jersey were to match that win total, it would count for about 7% of Atlantic City’s gaming revenue.
The biggest takeaway is that the New Jersey sports betting battle is far from over. The state is determined to have its way, even if that means not taxing sportsbook earnings. However, the implementation of such a fee appears to be gaining significance in the legal and political battle that never seems to end.
In the letter, the two state lawmakers proposed a solution to the issue that legalized sports betting may jeopardize the “integrity of the game,” one of the main sports betting concerns expressed by the NCAA and professional leagues. “While we strongly support the legalization of sports betting in New Jersey and the economic benefits it will bring to Atlantic City, we are cognizant that sports leagues like the NBA need the necessary resources to protect the integrity and fairness of games,” the letter dated September 15 states.
The proposal includes a 0.25% fee on the amount wagered, known as the handle, at New Jersey sportsbooks. These funds would go towards creating a “Game Integrity Department” at league offices, according to the letter. Said department will be tasked with investigating suspicious betting patterns and opponents involved in those contests.
The problem may come with enforcing the regulation. How exactly would the State of New Jersey be able to enforce these proposed fees? Sportsbook operators would have to work on the honor system with sports leagues due to the unusual situation of the repeal of the law prohibiting sports gambling without the concurrent implementation of any broad-based state regulations or licensing. It may be a game of catch-up for some time.
It also may not be the only fee paid on New Jersey sports handles. The Internal Revenue Service has a sports betting excise tax of 0.25% on “any wager authorized under the law of the state in which accepted.” The tax may actually be 2% of all sports wagers in New Jersey as state law does not expressly permit the activity.
A New Jersey sports betting court battle created this scenario.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie issued a directive that allows New Jersey racetracks and Atlantic City casinos to offer sports betting. Monmouth Park was the first to announce its launch date. The ambitious racetrack hoped to have sports betting live by September 14. Track officials announced that the goal is now to open by the last weekend in October.
This change of direction is due to a review of Gov. Christie’s order. The legality of this opinion, supported by New Jersey Attorney General John Hoffman, is being considered by a federal judge. A ruling on the case is expected on or around October 17. No other racetracks have announced plans to offer sports betting and Atlantic City casinos have also largely remained silent as to their intentions.
New Jersey lost a federal court battle with five sports leagues and the U.S. Department of Justice when lower courts ruled in favor of the NCAA and professional sports leagues that fought vigorously to uphold federal law that placed a restriction on states allowing sports gambling within their borders (with the exception of a few states grandfathered in for specific types of sports betting in place when the original ban was implemented). The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
New Jersey hopes to have found a loophole to begin offering sports betting despite the state losing in court. “This is not the first time Gov. Christie has expanded gambling in New Jersey to help the struggling industry,” said James Peterson at Legal NJ Online Casino.”In 2013 he also signed a bill into law that regulated online poker and casino games in the state.”
The NCAA and professional sports league plaintiffs asserted, in prior litigation, that the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act prohibits New Jersey from legalizing sports betting. New Jersey argued that the law is unconstitutional on its face.
One point made by the sports leagues was that nothing was stopping New Jersey from repealing its sports betting laws. According to New Jersey Attorney General Hoffman, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. That is the path New Jersey is attempting to take with its most recent push to implement a sport wagering scheme within the state.
This move was contrary to Gov. Christie’s actions in August. He vetoed a bill that was essentially the same as his most recent order on the subject. The bill was sponsored by State Senator Ray Lesniak and passed the Senate 38-1. The Assembly approved it 63-6 with two abstentions. The votes made the bill appear to be veto-proof, but not with Gov. Christie making the final decision on whether the bill became law.
Gov. Christie did not like taking this backdoor approach. “Ignoring federal law, rather than working to reform federal standards, is counter to our democratic traditions and inconsistent with the Constitutional values I have sworn to defend and protect,” he wrote in a veto message at the time.
However, it could be easily argued that Gov. Christie’s new action allowing sports betting at racetracks and Atlantic City casinos does just that.
Monmouth Park appears to be the only venue at the moment that is preparing to roll out sports betting. The Meadowlands Racetrack is on the record as not being interested at this stage. The Meadowlands Racetrack’s neighbor is MetLife MET +0.18% Stadium, home to the NFL’s New York Giants and New York Jets.
New Jersey casinos have more on the line than the sanctity and health of the state’s racetracks. If sports betting is spread to resorts within the state and the sports betting scheme is later found to be contrary to federal law it could create problems with gaming commissions in other jurisdictions where they are licensed or hope to be in the future.
There may not be any reason for Atlantic City casinos to take the risk of implementing sports betting systems until the legal status of Gov. Christie’s order is offered additional clarity. Nevada sportsbooks brought in $202.8 million in 2013. That was just 1.8% of Nevada’s entire gaming revenue in 2013. If New Jersey were to match that win total, it would count for about 7% of Atlantic City’s gaming revenue.
The biggest takeaway is that the New Jersey sports betting battle is far from over. The state is determined to have its way, even if that means not taxing sportsbook earnings. However, the implementation of such a fee appears to be gaining significance in the legal and political battle that never seems to end.
CJEU confirms differentiated tax regime for Danish online gambling
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has issued a ruling that confirms the differentiated Danish tax regime for online gambling in the country.
Applicants had challenged a decision by the European Commission to approve the Danish taxation model for online and offline gambling, which sets out two different taxation levels for the alternate types of gambling.
The Danish level of tax for online gaming was established after taking into account the need to channel consumers in the country towards regulated services.
However, the Court ruled that land-based applicants are not individually impacted by the tax regime.
The Court also confirmed that Member States are able to continue setting a tax level for online gambling that considers the competitive global internet market to ensure consumers are channelled to regulated services.
Maarten Haijer, secretary general of the European Gaming & Betting Association, said: “We welcome today’s decision of the Court confirming that the Commission correctly argued that online gambling requires a tax level that takes into account the competitiveness of the global online .com offer.
“With the unregulated offer just one click away on the internet, consumers will only play within the regulated environment if that offer is sufficiently attractive in terms of price and consumer experience.
“There are plenty examples of Member States where the regulated offer fails to attract consumers due to product restrictions and tax levels, resulting in those consumers being pushed outside the European regulatory umbrella, often to unregulated Asian offerings.”
Haijer added: “Having a restrictive market defeats the purpose of any regulation, namely ensuring proper consumer protection.
“An appropriate tax level is one of the key elements in creating an attractive and safe playing environment, albeit not the only one.
“It is important to emphasise that EGBA does not consider a differentiated tax regime as an objective in itself.
“But it is imperative that the tax level for online gambling is set at a level that allows for a competitive regulated market compared to the unlicensed offer from outside of the EU.”
Applicants had challenged a decision by the European Commission to approve the Danish taxation model for online and offline gambling, which sets out two different taxation levels for the alternate types of gambling.
The Danish level of tax for online gaming was established after taking into account the need to channel consumers in the country towards regulated services.
However, the Court ruled that land-based applicants are not individually impacted by the tax regime.
The Court also confirmed that Member States are able to continue setting a tax level for online gambling that considers the competitive global internet market to ensure consumers are channelled to regulated services.
Maarten Haijer, secretary general of the European Gaming & Betting Association, said: “We welcome today’s decision of the Court confirming that the Commission correctly argued that online gambling requires a tax level that takes into account the competitiveness of the global online .com offer.
“With the unregulated offer just one click away on the internet, consumers will only play within the regulated environment if that offer is sufficiently attractive in terms of price and consumer experience.
“There are plenty examples of Member States where the regulated offer fails to attract consumers due to product restrictions and tax levels, resulting in those consumers being pushed outside the European regulatory umbrella, often to unregulated Asian offerings.”
Haijer added: “Having a restrictive market defeats the purpose of any regulation, namely ensuring proper consumer protection.
“An appropriate tax level is one of the key elements in creating an attractive and safe playing environment, albeit not the only one.
“It is important to emphasise that EGBA does not consider a differentiated tax regime as an objective in itself.
“But it is imperative that the tax level for online gambling is set at a level that allows for a competitive regulated market compared to the unlicensed offer from outside of the EU.”
Mybet continues restructuring with Italian sale
Online gaming and betting provider mybet Holding has taken another step in its restructuring process after completing the sale of its mybet Italia business.
Mybet sold its interest in the operation by way of a management buyout to the company’s managing director Gianluca Torricelli.
The sale comes after mybet last month offloaded its stakes in Spanish companies Digital Distribution Management (DDM) and Digital Distribution Management Iberica (DDMI).
Sven Ivo Brinck, who was appointed as the sole member of the firm’s management board in late 2013, announced earlier this year that mybet would be realigned.
In a statement about the Italian sale, mybet said: “The move is in line with mybet's current goal of increasing profitability by focusing clearly on core markets.
“By successfully continuing with the restructuring measures, the management Board presses ahead with the systematic repositioning of the mybet Group as previously announced.
Mybet sold its interest in the operation by way of a management buyout to the company’s managing director Gianluca Torricelli.
The sale comes after mybet last month offloaded its stakes in Spanish companies Digital Distribution Management (DDM) and Digital Distribution Management Iberica (DDMI).
Sven Ivo Brinck, who was appointed as the sole member of the firm’s management board in late 2013, announced earlier this year that mybet would be realigned.
In a statement about the Italian sale, mybet said: “The move is in line with mybet's current goal of increasing profitability by focusing clearly on core markets.
“By successfully continuing with the restructuring measures, the management Board presses ahead with the systematic repositioning of the mybet Group as previously announced.
Japan may finally cash in on the elderly’s love of gambling
Japan is reforming its gambling industry, with plans to introduce a new law this autumn that will legalize casinos as a way to boost economic growth and tourism before the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. One of the biggest potential beneficiaries? Pachinko, the pinball-slot machine hybrid played across the country.
One in seven Japanese adults play pachinko and its revenues last year were put at 19 trillion yen ($175 billion), according to The Economist. But pachinko players are mainly, as the magazine puts it, “chain-smoking geezers.”
The number of regular players is falling and they are getting older. This is part of a broader trend; Japan has the world’s oldest population, with a quarter of its people over 65, which means that in order for the country’s economy to grow, it needs to find ways to get more from what it already has.
As pachinko was previously classified as a game, it hasn’t been taxed. Players win small metal balls, which can be exchanged for token prizes at the parlor—or cash at a separate location, a contrivance that led to pachinko being used for money-laundering by the yakuza. As casinos are legalized, pachinko is likely to come under similar rules, and may finally contribute to the public purse. Given the sums involved, it would mean billions of dollars worth of taxes for the government.
The biggest pachinko operator, Dynam, operates almost 400 parlors. The proceeds from a 2012 listing in Hong Kong is funding plans to open 1,000 more—these will be air-conditioned and smoke-free in a bid to attract younger customers. The company is also in talks to build a casino in Japan once the law passes.
Analysts told Reuters that Japan could become the third-biggest gambling market in the world, with annual revenues of more than $40 billion. And doesn’t even count the massive pachinko market.
One in seven Japanese adults play pachinko and its revenues last year were put at 19 trillion yen ($175 billion), according to The Economist. But pachinko players are mainly, as the magazine puts it, “chain-smoking geezers.”
The number of regular players is falling and they are getting older. This is part of a broader trend; Japan has the world’s oldest population, with a quarter of its people over 65, which means that in order for the country’s economy to grow, it needs to find ways to get more from what it already has.
As pachinko was previously classified as a game, it hasn’t been taxed. Players win small metal balls, which can be exchanged for token prizes at the parlor—or cash at a separate location, a contrivance that led to pachinko being used for money-laundering by the yakuza. As casinos are legalized, pachinko is likely to come under similar rules, and may finally contribute to the public purse. Given the sums involved, it would mean billions of dollars worth of taxes for the government.
The biggest pachinko operator, Dynam, operates almost 400 parlors. The proceeds from a 2012 listing in Hong Kong is funding plans to open 1,000 more—these will be air-conditioned and smoke-free in a bid to attract younger customers. The company is also in talks to build a casino in Japan once the law passes.
Analysts told Reuters that Japan could become the third-biggest gambling market in the world, with annual revenues of more than $40 billion. And doesn’t even count the massive pachinko market.
September 26, 2014
General Court of the EU upholds the Danish tax regime for online gambling
The General Court of the EU issued a ruling at first instance in the Danish State aid case (and upheld the European Commission’s decision, confirming that the Danish regime instituting a lower tax for online gambling is compliant with EU state-aid rules.
In doing so, the Court found that the applicants did not demonstrate that they were directly and individually affected by the tax measure. As a result, Member States can adopt a differentiated tax regime for online gambling with the view to designing an attractive market that is able to compete in the international online gambling market.
It is worth noting that the judgment implicitly accepts the arguments put forward by the Danish government about the need to channel Danish consumers towards the regulated online gambling market. The Court limited itself to deciding whether the applicants, who are land-based gambling operators, were directly and individually affected by the Commission’s decision. In both cases, the Court reached the same conclusion:
“The applicant is therefore not individually concerned by the contested decision.”
This means that the implementation of an internationally competitive tax regime that is critical in safeguarding the public policy objectives pursued by the Danish Gambling Act 2012 is now clearly in compliance with EU law.
Clive Hawkswood, CEO of the RGA, stated that: “it is very encouraging to see that the EU judicial body upholds the Commission’s decision which recognises that tax regimes for online gambling cannot be considered in isolation and have to be viewed within the context of international competition. Although this decision relates solely to tax, we believe that a similar rationale should apply across the board to all aspects of online gambling regulations and that this can be done without undermining very legitimate public policy objectives, such as safeguarding consumers and keeping gambling crime-free. This ruling will undoubtedly help us make the case for workable and competitive licensing regimes as more and more EU Member States open and regulate their online gambling markets.”
In doing so, the Court found that the applicants did not demonstrate that they were directly and individually affected by the tax measure. As a result, Member States can adopt a differentiated tax regime for online gambling with the view to designing an attractive market that is able to compete in the international online gambling market.
It is worth noting that the judgment implicitly accepts the arguments put forward by the Danish government about the need to channel Danish consumers towards the regulated online gambling market. The Court limited itself to deciding whether the applicants, who are land-based gambling operators, were directly and individually affected by the Commission’s decision. In both cases, the Court reached the same conclusion:
“The applicant is therefore not individually concerned by the contested decision.”
This means that the implementation of an internationally competitive tax regime that is critical in safeguarding the public policy objectives pursued by the Danish Gambling Act 2012 is now clearly in compliance with EU law.
Clive Hawkswood, CEO of the RGA, stated that: “it is very encouraging to see that the EU judicial body upholds the Commission’s decision which recognises that tax regimes for online gambling cannot be considered in isolation and have to be viewed within the context of international competition. Although this decision relates solely to tax, we believe that a similar rationale should apply across the board to all aspects of online gambling regulations and that this can be done without undermining very legitimate public policy objectives, such as safeguarding consumers and keeping gambling crime-free. This ruling will undoubtedly help us make the case for workable and competitive licensing regimes as more and more EU Member States open and regulate their online gambling markets.”
Coral finalizes deal with UK celebrity blog ahead of royal baby betting frenzy
The frenzy surrounding the Dutchess of Cambridge’s pregnancy and birth to Prince George taught online betting sites a valuable lesson: prepare early.
Coral finalizes deal with UK celebrity blog ahead of royal baby betting frenzyNow that the Dutchess is again pregnant to her second child with the Duke of Cambridge, online betting firm Coral gears up for another round of royal baby betting hysteria by teaming up with British celebrity and novelty betting TV blog, FlashBitch.
FlashBitch is known mostly for her off-the-cuff, sarcastic and oftentimes controversial commentaries on British reality television and related betting. The blog has also gained a reputation for being on top of the landscape of British reality television, turning her into an expert of sorts when it comes to betting on novelty-props related to entertainment.
“Coral make a perfect partner in this respect given their position in the UK high street and enthusiasm to explore new ideas,” Media Skunk Works CEO Paul Reilly said.
The deal with Coral not only makes the online betting site the official betting partner of FlashBitch but it also opens the doors for both parties to new opportunities on making the most of the growing popularity of entertainment and prop-betting markets like the “royal baby”or at in this case, “royal baby 2”.
“Novelty betting has become increasingly popular over the years, thanks to the likes of the X Factor, Strictly Come Dancing, Britain’s Got Talent and so on,” Coral PR Manager Nicola Geady said in a statement.
“However, it’s no longer just talent contests that is attracting money. Last July, royal baby betting exceeded all expectations, with punters betting on the name, hair color and gender of the future monarch. Now that the Duchess of Cambridge is pregnant again, we’re expecting a frenzy of similar heights, with turnover expected to reach a million pounds across the betting industry,” Geady added.
As part of the deal, FlashBitch’s expanded content coverage of entertainment, which will be integrated into Coral’s novelty-bet market, including latest odds and exclusive enhanced offers.
Coral finalizes deal with UK celebrity blog ahead of royal baby betting frenzyNow that the Dutchess is again pregnant to her second child with the Duke of Cambridge, online betting firm Coral gears up for another round of royal baby betting hysteria by teaming up with British celebrity and novelty betting TV blog, FlashBitch.
FlashBitch is known mostly for her off-the-cuff, sarcastic and oftentimes controversial commentaries on British reality television and related betting. The blog has also gained a reputation for being on top of the landscape of British reality television, turning her into an expert of sorts when it comes to betting on novelty-props related to entertainment.
“Coral make a perfect partner in this respect given their position in the UK high street and enthusiasm to explore new ideas,” Media Skunk Works CEO Paul Reilly said.
The deal with Coral not only makes the online betting site the official betting partner of FlashBitch but it also opens the doors for both parties to new opportunities on making the most of the growing popularity of entertainment and prop-betting markets like the “royal baby”or at in this case, “royal baby 2”.
“Novelty betting has become increasingly popular over the years, thanks to the likes of the X Factor, Strictly Come Dancing, Britain’s Got Talent and so on,” Coral PR Manager Nicola Geady said in a statement.
“However, it’s no longer just talent contests that is attracting money. Last July, royal baby betting exceeded all expectations, with punters betting on the name, hair color and gender of the future monarch. Now that the Duchess of Cambridge is pregnant again, we’re expecting a frenzy of similar heights, with turnover expected to reach a million pounds across the betting industry,” Geady added.
As part of the deal, FlashBitch’s expanded content coverage of entertainment, which will be integrated into Coral’s novelty-bet market, including latest odds and exclusive enhanced offers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)