RIGHT2BET has exclusively revealed that throughout the World Cup European state betting monopolies offered their customers, on average, 32% worse odds than those available with private betting companies.
Monopoly customers wishing to back their home nation in South Africa were subjected to 35% worse odds than those being offered by the EU-licensed private sector operators that their governments do not allow them to use.
The startling figures have been revealed in the Right2bet World Cup Report which analysed the odds offered on every World Cup match by seven of Europe’-s biggest betting monopolies, before comparing them to the equivalent prices being offered by other licensed European operators.
The aim of the report was to investigate whether or not Europe’-s betting monopolies were short-changing their customers via the help of legislation which protects their existence and market dominance.
Right2bet is campaigning for the right of all European consumers to be able to bet with the licensed operator of their choice, regardless of the Member State in which they are based.
Right2bet spokesman Ari Last said: “-The figures emanating from this report are quite shocking. Millions of EU consumers who wanted to bet during the World Cup were subjected to hugely inferior prices by the monopolies that their governments strive so hard to protect.”-
“-The protectionist behaviour of certain Member States when it comes to online gambling is a situation that does not conform to the ethos of the single-market, and we hope that the findings of this report will highlight what is undoubtedly an unjust reality.”-
Right2bet World Cup Report key points:
• Monopolies offered their customers 32% worse odds than licensed private operators
• The ‘-Perfect Bettor’- forced to bet with a monopoly would have made €629 less than they would have done if they were allowed to bet with other EU-licensed operators in the private sector
• On average, a monopoly customer choosing to back the ‘-favourite’- throughout every one of the 64 tournament matches would have received 38% less value, while one who chose to back the ‘-outsider’- throughout each game of the tournament would have received 35% less value
• Monopolies offered customers wishing to back their home nation 35% worse odds than private operators
• It is clear from the results published in this report that consumers using online gambling services in the EU are receiving significantly lower value when forced to use a state monopoly provider
• Germany: 48% worse off
• Sweden: 40% worse off
• The Netherlands: 35% worse off
• France: 31.5% worse off
• Greece: 31% worse off
• Denmark: 14.4% worse off
Part 4 is about prediction markets and InTrade.
Part 4 is about InTrade’-s prediction markets:
Download this post to watch the video, if your feed reader does not show it to you.
Download this post to watch the video if your feed reader does not show it to you.
– Once you have written your draft, e-mail me so I can publish it and optimize it for Google.
– Otherwise, the post stays in the “-pending”- area —-which I don’-t check that often.
The new law is going to be assessed by the French Supreme Court (Conseil Constitutionnel), the French Administrative Council (Conseil d’Etat about “-les decrets d’application”-), and the European Union. So, stay tuned.
Addendum: Eric Zemmour on the Internet gambling laws liberalization. (He is against.)
Online gambling companies that advertise in the UK, or take bets from customers in the UK, are facing the prospect of much greater scrutiny and the requirement to obtain a licence of some description from the UK Gambling Commission.
This is the news, emanating from the DCMS just a few days ago, which I suspect will not be welcome news to the online gambling industry. Credits go to the APCW 2nd April video for bringing this information to my attention.
I’-ve commented also in my own UK online gambling article.
The plans came to light in an announcement by the DCMS of a consultation on the regulatory future of remote gambling in Great Britain. The full details of the proposals can be found as follows:
I have also produced a user-friendly version, with contents links for convenient navigation to the various sections –- see my consultation document copy. If you want to read the full document, this version definitely facilitates the process.
I’-ll summarise the situation as succinctly as possible:
Basically, the DCMS, the governmental department directly responsible for remote (online) gambling in the UK, is concerned about the current imbalance represented by the existence of two types of online gambling operations with access to UK customers:
• Those which are located in the UK and fully covered by UK legislation.
• Those which are located outside the UK.
The latter category represents the vast majority, and this is then divided into two groups:
• EEA member states, plus Gibraltar, Isle of Man, Alderney, Tasmania and Antigua &- Barbuda.
• Everyone else.
It is the problems presented by these two non-UK based groups that the proposals seek to address.
The problems under consideration, all outlined in the document, centre on the lack of a guaranteed regulatory framework for non-UK based operators, and the risks this presents to UK customers.
First, the DCMS considered four possible options for EEA member states, which I quote here:
• Do nothing.
• Introduce non-statutory changes to the system and increased regulatory co-operation.
• Introduce the need for such operators to obtain a licence to enable them to advertise in the UK.
• Introduce the need for such operators to obtain a licence to enable them to transact with British consumers and advertise in the UK.
The option planned for adoption is the last, which is the most far-reaching.
Second, for non-EEA member states (plus Gibraltar, Isle of Man, Alderney, Tasmania and Antigua &- Barbuda), The DCMS considered three possible options:
• Improve the white listing system for non-EEA jurisdictions.
• Develop a more streamlined white listing process as well as introduce licensing for operators in white listed jurisdictions.
• Abolish the white list and introduce a licensing system for operators in all non-EEA jurisdictions.
The option that the government proposes to adobt here is the second, the more “-streamlined”- whitelist.
To summarise to date: EEA member states (plus Gibraltar, Isle of Man, Alderney, Tasmania and Antigua &- Barbuda) would need a to obtain a license to transact with UK customers- non-EEA member states would need to be whitelisted.
The proposals are currently very flexible on matters of compliance. They do suggest the following safeguards, however:
• A mirrored, tamper-proof server containing a full copy of gambling transaction records for inspection by the Commission (in Britain or elsewhere)
• A regulatory representative in Britain
• A UK registered company and certain office functions located in Britain
• More enhanced regulatory returns
• A bond lodged in Britain or payable to the Commission in the event of default.
On the question of actual enforcement: the consultation considers, and rejects, prohibitive and punitive measures (such as extradition applications for offenders, the actual blocking of transactions to non-licensed operators by UK banks, ISP blocking, and so on), preferring to focus on cooperation, rather than than sanctions, as a means of ensuring compliance.
Which is all very “-British”-.
They also say as follows with regard to prohibitionist measures:
We have considered whether to make it an offence for a British citizen to gamble with an unlicensed provider.
At this stage we are not minded to consider such a provision further as it seems disproportionate to the harm caused and raises issues of informed adult choice.
We do not intend at this stage to introduce an offence that would criminalise the consumer for gambling with an unlicensed operator.
This suggests that they do not rule out a US-style prohibitive approach at some future point –- though I suspect this is very unlikely.
Issues of raising consumer awareness, such as a dedicated section of the Commission’-s website put aside for facts relevant to the player customers, are also considered as part of the compliance / enforcement considerations. Consumers could thuswise:
• Check the licensed status of operators.
• Learn which operators have had their licences suspended or revoked.
• Learn which operators are trying to access the market without a licence (we envisage this would usually refer to repeat offenders).
• Anonymously or otherwise, inform the Commission of any operators that have been targeting British consumers without a licence.
The actual consultation document is long, but not too long. It’-s definitely worth reading if these matters are of interest to you.
The proposals under consideration will certainly tighten up the online gambling scene as it relates to the UK-based customer. As such, I support them. However, I suspect the industry as a whole will not view this development with any great affection, as it represents more cost and, crucially, closer scrutiny.
Close scrutiny and online gambling are not happy bedfellows.