Inside Asian Gaming

May 2014 inside asian gaming 45 targeting a UK audience. The second is that a UK license will carry with it a considerably higher regulatory burden that will make life very difficult for Asian-facing operators. For example, operators would have to give details of each territory from which they obtain more than 3% of their income and the reasons that they think they are entitled to take bets from those territories. And the third is that even if those hurdles could be overcome, it seems likely that the Gambling Commission would not grant licenses to Asian operators even if they wanted them. The commission has said that it “will not normally license operators unless they have a British-facing business and either currently transact with British consumers or have a clear business plan for doing so in the future”. In other words, the commission will not grant a license unless the operator is actually targeting UK customers. So where does that leave Asian operators, and is there any room for manoeuvre? Given that the purpose of the bill is about protecting UK customers and given that most Asian gaming operators are not interested in targeting those UK customers many observers had expected that the commission would issue a special “advertising only” license under which those operators could advertise in the UK without a full license as long as they are not targeting UK customers. However, given the commission’s position as stated above it appears that there will be no such advertising-only license. That leaves operators with only one other available argument—that if they block UK customers fromaccessing their UKWeb sites, they do not Shirt and perimeter sponsorships, which are amongst the most valuable in the sport, are likely to be hit the hardest. And if Asian gaming operators do decide to pull out of some of their deals, Premier League clubs (and, indeed, other UK-based sports) will be left wondering how to plug the gap when the Asian sponsorship dollars start to dry up. The UK Gambling Commission has said that it “will not normally license operators unless they have a British- facing business and either currently transact with British consumers or have a clear business plan for doing so in the future”. In other words, the commission will not grant a license unless the operator is actually targeting UK customers. need to hold a UK gambling license, because by doing so they would not be engaged in unlawful gambling. This may not be as easy as it sounds, however—there is currently no guidance as to what (if any) types of blocking measures might be sufficient or whether the position could change if the company has remote gambling equipment in the UK. The industry will certainly be hoping that this is addressed in subsequent Gambling Commission guidance. So where next? The bill has passed through all of the parliamentary stages. It is expected to receive royal assent this month and will probably come into force within three months. So Asian operators will need to rethink their strategy around sponsorship of the Premier League and other British sports. Some may look to exit their existing relationships rather than risk regulatory intervention (although those that have signed up to longer-term deals may have some difficulties in terminating contracts and may need to “buy” their way out early). Others will seek workarounds, such as blocking access to UK customers or simply focusing on operations outside of the UK. For example, a Chinese brand could arguably be the official sponsor of a club’s Chinese Web site as long as there is no advertising within the UK. However, shirt and perimeter sponsorships, which are amongst the most valuable in the sport, are likely to be hit the hardest. And if Asian gaming operators do decide to pull out of some of their deals, Premier League clubs (and, indeed, other UK-based sports) will be left wondering how to plug the gap when the Asian sponsorship dollars start to dry up. The View