Inside Asian Gaming

December 2013 | INSIDE ASIAN GAMING 29 IN FOCUS Earlier this year, in a policy paper titled“European Football United for the Integrity of the Game” and focusing on the ongoing battle against corruption, several of the sport’s major governing bodies framed a “sport’s organiser’s right in the context of betting,” stating that “recognition” of this right would “help tackle threats relating to the integrity of sport, secure a fair financial return to sports bodies and their members, provide funding to further protect the integrity of the game, but also finance other areas such as youth, amateur and female sport to develop the economic and social role of sport.” The document was endorsed by the Union of European Football Associations, the European Professional Football Leagues, the European Club Association and FIFPro Division Europe, the European branch of the World Players’ Union With the exception of many lotteries, whose main purpose is benefiting society, what exactly private betting operators have to do with many of these areas or why the sector should fund them is unclear. From an integrity perspective, what these football bodies imply is that operators should pay the game to protect it from its own corrupt participants, who often collude with criminals to defraud our industry. That is not a logical argument but unfortunately one which many blindly swallow. It also invariably includes advocating restrictions on the types of bets available, even to the extent that sports should supposedly have the right to determine the commercial markets offered by regulated betting companies. This is promoted as a way of protecting the integrity of events, but it is actually about establishing commercial control. The UK Gambling Commission, which regulates some of the largest licensed betting operators, conducted a detailed study on this issue and determined that it was “not persuaded that there is a sufficient case for restricting types of bets” and recently reiterated its position with regard to proposals to restrict in-play betting, stating that it had “looked carefully at this” but that “any threat to sports betting integrity can be managed without the need to ban” these very popular wagers. ESSA fully supports this evidence-based analysis and approach. There is simply no evidence to support limits on regulated betting markets, which would be an unjustified restriction on trade, based on unsubstantiated integrity grounds. The result would be to push consumers toward unregulated markets not burdened by such restrictions and where no integrity monitoring takes place. That is clearly not in the interests of consumers or of sports. ESSA has also continually opposed the establishment of the flawed “sport’s organiser’s right” as pursued by many international sporting bodies. Apart from the cost of their own internal security systems, betting operators already make large-scale investments in sport and pay significant sums to regulators to protect betting integrity. Again, those operators should not also have to pay for the corrupt activities of players, coaches and officials. Asian operators should not be drawn into thinking that this is solely a European issue. UEFA, EPFL and other global authorities will want associated contributions from operators around the world, as they do with other commercial activities such as TV rights and and where Asia is becoming an ever bigger part of the fiscal picture. The English Premier League recently criticized the Japanese government for extending the country’s betting market to its games without holding discussions with the league which no doubt would include promotion of a commercial “right”. Indeed, the flawed commercial and integrity arguments employed by European football are commonplace worldwide. ESSA continually encounters thesewhilst representing the licensedbetting industry’s interests at high-profile transnational working groups. It is The UK Gambling Commission, which regulates some of the largest licensed betting operators, determined that it was “not persuaded that there is a sufficient case for restricting types of bets” and recently reiterated its position with regard to proposals to restrict in-play betting, stating that it had “looked carefully at this” but that “any threat to sports betting integrity can be managed without the need to ban” these very popular wagers.