The Betsson.gr brand will offer sports betting, casino, live casino, and virtual sports in Greece via the online gaming and betting licences awarded by the Hellenic Gaming Commission (HGC). Betsson has received two of the new HGC licenses to operate in Greece; one license for games of chance (casino, slots, poker) and another one for betting (sportsbook), both of which are valid for an initial period of seven years.
“We are really pleased to receive these licenses and to welcome Greece as Betsson’s 18th locally regulated market,” said Pontus Lindwall, president and chief executive for Betsson.
“As in other markets, our vision for Greece is to offer the best customer experience possible and we have partnered with some great gaming suppliers and payment providers to augment our offering.
“The Greek gaming market has experienced significant growth over the past years, and we see a lot of potential.”
Betsson said its Greek brand will be launched with a product offering specifically developed with local players in mind, as well as Greek language dedicated customer support services in the Greek language.
The licences are priced at €3m (£2.5m/$3.4m) for sports betting and €2m for games and run for seven-year terms. Licence holders must pay a 35% gross gaming revenue tax rate.
Per the bill passed last year, the 24 operators that were granted temporary licences in 2011 were allowed to continue operating until 31 March 2020, then had to reapply.
Play is restricted to those aged 21 and above. The regulations also impose strict conditions for online casino, including a €2 maximum slot stake, with prizes capped at €5,000, and a €50,000 limit for jackpot games.
Lotto Max, Lotto 6/49, Daily Grand and Western Max are among the games available online as Alberta Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis Commission (AGLC) seeks to expand the PlayAlberta.ca digital offering.
Due to pre-arranged trial commitments taking place next week, a final ruling can’t be administered until the judge, Robin Vos, is free to do so.
A statement from Football Index said: “The High Court has concluded the hearing of the Administrators’ application for guidance on the distribution of the Player Protection Fund monies. Following lengthy argument for several different dates, the Judge has reserved his decision.
“As soon as the judgement is released we will provide further details of the payment process, and ensure that payments are made at the earliest possible time.”
The High Court hearing was initially called in order to determine how to distribute the £4.5m left in Football Index’s player protection account. The money is intended for player account funds, which totalled £3.2m when the operator entered administration, but administrators said further clarity was required on dividends – a form of winnings – that would be paid based on events after 11 March.
Administrators said the operator may be liable to pay these as well, but this would put the player protection account into default.
Administrators thus called on the court determine whether 11 March (the day operator BetIndex entered administration), 26 March or a date after 26 March should be chosen as the cut-off date from when player’s bets should be considered active.
Vos also acknowledged that his decision was likely to be received negatively by some customers, no matter which way he ruled.
“I understand that no matter what way I rule, there are going to be people who lose out and people who do better,” he said.
Lexa Hilliard QC, representing administrators Begbies Traynor in arguing for either of the two earlier dates, expressed a similar sentiment.
“Either way, depending on what type of customer you are, it’s going to be unfair to somebody.”
Anthony De Garr Robinson presented the case for a later date.
During the hearing, Hilliard also pointed out that if the court opted to choose an early cut-off date for bets, leaving the player protection account with a surplus, these funds would not be taken from players, as those with active bets would still make up the vast majority of remaining creditors.
A selection of Red Tiger’s portfolio of games are now available through BetMGM in Pennsylvania with more to be added in the coming weeks, as a partnership signed last year between Evolution and leading operator BetMGM hits Pennsylvania.
The launch follows Bet MGM’s successful platform integration of Evolution Group’s Evolution-powered live casino games and NetEnt slot titles throughout its states of operation in the US.
The agreement allows PointsBet to integrate WNBA games into its betting platforms, as well as gaining access to sponsorship opportunities with the league’s franchises.
“We are thrilled to align with the WNBA and bring the world-class PointsBet experience to one of the most digitally-engaged fan bases on earth,” PointsBet USA chief executive Johnny Aitken commented.
“The WNBA has done a phenomenal job with growing fan engagement, and PointsBet is excited to be a piece of that puzzle moving forward,” he added. “In owning and operating our technology from end to end, PointsBet can innovate our product and personalise our offerings according to fan interest and needs – WNBA supporters will appreciate this competitive advantage, as well as our app’s market-leading speed and ease of use.”
As part of the agreement, PointsBet and the WNBA will collaborate on efforts to promote and protect the integrity of league games.
WNBA commissioner Cathy Engelbert said the deal would enhance a second-screen experience that would increase fan engagement with players, teams and the league.
The Sydney-headquartered games supplier reported a 1.0% drop in revenue to A$2.23bn for the six months to 31 March, 2021, down just slightly on the 2020 figure despite COVID-19 restrictions in many markets and foreign exchange headwinds.
Aristocrat said on a constant currency basis, revenue was 10.7% higher than the prior period, reflecting strong operational performance in Digital, Americas and ANZ Gaming, but partly offset by international markets remaining largely closed.
Segment revenue was broadly in line with the prior corresponding period, while the percentage of total revenue derived from recurring sources increased by 5.8 percentage points to 79.5% compared to the prior corresponding period, principally driven by Digital, and a robust recovery across North America gaming operations, combined with lower global outright sales due to Covid-19.
Aristocrat saw a 1.7% increase in revenues in Australia and New Zealand to A$209.1m, while Americas revenue was down 11.1% to A$810.2m and its much smaller International Class III division fell 81.5% to A$16.8m.
However, digital revenue grew by 14.3% year-on-year to $1.19bn, with ongoing growth propelling Aristocrat Digital to become a Top 5 mobile games publisher in tier 1 western markets, according to data and analytics provider App Annie. It also achieved seven games in the US top 100 over the period.
Aristocrat said its normalised profit after tax was broadly in line with H1 2019, reflecting growth in digital, supplemented by a strong recovery in the Americas and ANZ Gaming markets, and partly offset by unfavourable foreign exchange movements which cost an estimated $52m.
Segment profit – excluding any revenue or expenses at the corporate level – increased A$32m (or 4%) in reported currency compared to the prior corresponding period, to A$889.7m. Profit margins across ANZ and Americas increased from 37.5% to 40.6% and from 49.4% to 50.8% respectively, driven by product performance and increased operating leverage compared to the prior corresponding period. Margin in International Class III was significantly impacted by Covid-19-related customer venue closures and travel restrictions.
Digital margin increased from 28.5% to 33.7% due to strong portfolio performance and the fact that there were no new game launches scheduled in the period. User Acquisition remained at 28% of Digital revenue which Aristocrat believes will support long-term profitable growth.
Aristocrat said it continued to invest significantly in talent and technology to deliver competitive product across a broader range of gaming segments and digital genres. Investment in research and development remained at 11% on a percentage of revenue basis, while corporate costs decreased by $3.5m compared to the prior corresponding period.
The supplier paid a further A$267.4m in general and administrative costs, $95.3m in sales and marketing costs and $69.9m in finance costs.
Aristocrat’s statutory results show a 21.4% rise in profit from ordinary activities before tax to A$461.5m, with the after-tax figure down 73.5% to $346.5m.
The effective tax rate (ETR) for the reporting period was 24.7% compared to 24.2% in the prior corresponding period, reflecting changes in the geographic mix of the business.
In normalised results – excluding items such as a deferred tax asset in the prior period – profit before tax was up 19.1% to $480.9m with after tax and before amortisation of acquired intangibles was up 11.8% to $411.6m.
Trevor Croker, Aristocrat’s chief executive and managing director, said “The outstanding momentum we’ve delivered this half reflects our unwavering focus on the things we can control, which lies at the heart of our proven growth strategy.
“Despite the uncertainties driven by COVID-19, we have maintained investment in the best people, talent, technology and product portfolios, and taken conscious decisions to accelerate implementation of our strategy.
“The results are reflected in the share growth and margin expansion achieved across Digital and key Gaming segments in the six months to 31 March 2021, and the double-digit increase in normalised Group NPATA delivered in the same period.
“We expect uncertain and volatile conditions to continue near term, and we are closely monitoring key factors including consumer sentiment and gaming venue patronage.
“Nevertheless, we enter the second half of fiscal 2021 with excellent momentum, resilience, and confidence with a strong balance sheet to continue to invest organically to grow share and accelerate growth through M&A in line with our rigorous criteria.”
“Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it is nonsense.”
Lemony Snicket, pen name of bestselling author, Daniel Handler.
There is a myth about gaming in America and that myth is all the bigger, it seems, in the age of mobile wagering. I have heard it referenced in my many interactions with international companies interested in bringing their products to America and have seen it in the title of conference sessions.
The myth is that there exists such a being as a “US gaming market.” In fairness, the concept of a US gaming market is probably less myth than misunderstanding. But the misconception can waste international companies valuable time and create considerable frustration in coming to America.
The bottom line is that there is no such thing as a single US gaming market. Instead, gaming in the US is a matter of state’s rights resulting in many state gaming jurisdictions.
susan Hensel
Each jurisdiction that has decided to allow gambling, an otherwise illegal activity, takes its own approach to such authorisation. This means there are as many US gaming markets as there are legislatures – or tribes – that have decided to open the doors to the activity.
Further, a state legislature – or tribe – can decide that gaming is right for its jurisdiction for a variety of reasons. A legislature, for instance, may see it as a means of raising tax revenue, creating jobs, creating a tourist destination, stimulating economic development, stopping the flow of money out of the state to adjoining border states, financing a particular initiative or any number of other motivations.
Perhaps it is a combination of these policy goals that leads to legislation legalising one or more gaming verticals. Policy decisions can also influence other aspects of a state’s law from the emphasis put on who, what and how to license, to decisions regarding the acceptance of credit, problem gambling considerations, and a variety of other social or policy issues.
The policy reasons that shape the legislation lay the foundation for the regulatory scheme that will follow. It is the state’s administrative agency that creates the regulations implementing the law.
While gaming jurisdictions borrow regulatory concepts and provisions from one another, the schemes they adopt are never identical with variations ranging from subtle nuances to wholesale differences. The end result is the creation of individual US gaming markets, each of which aspiring companies must navigate in order to do business.
The patchwork of jurisdictional regulations are understandably a headache for foreign gaming companies seeking a cost efficient and effective one size fits all rules of the road approach to market entry.
Instead, companies setting up shop in multiple US jurisdictions are asked to understand and meet different licensing, operational, compliance and enforcement requirements in each jurisdiction in which they seek to do business.
In my experience, it is not unusual for a foreign company to initially suggest to the US regulator that what it is doing is not the way it is done in other parts of the world. When online gaming was getting off the ground in the US, foreign companies, in particular, struggled to appreciate the importance of suitability to the US regulator.
The influence the mob exerted over gaming in the early days of Vegas and the rules put in place to eliminate that influence are not always understood by companies coming from places that do not share this history.
Foreign jurisdictions might instead place more attention on game fairness or protection of the vulnerable whereas the US adds suitability and other priorities to the mix. While it is interesting to hear how gaming is regulated in other parts of the world, the US gaming regulator is not empowered to make wholesale changes to its regulatory scheme simply because its requirements are inconsistent with other parts of the world.
Before launching my gaming law practice during my tenure as Pennsylvania’s director of licensing, I often heard the concern from online operators that what Pennsylvania was requiring was not what New Jersey required. And I imagine Michigan regulators have received similar feedback that what Michigan requires is not what Pennsylvania requires. True. And there is not a whole lot the respective regulators can do about it.
While the regulator is open to working with companies to allow for matters to be handled similarly where possible, the policy differences that underlie the individual regulatory schemes prevent blanket uniformity.
Take licensing, for instance. One of the most common asks is if regulators can allow reciprocity for licensing determinations across state lines and the answer to this point is no.
Granted it seems logical that if a person or company is good enough for one state, the person or entity should be good enough for the next. The problem is that no two state share the exact same licensing criteria. So a determination in one jurisdiction, as good as it is, is not fully applicable to the next jurisdiction.
One state may determine, for example, that a felony in an owner’s background precludes that individual from obtaining a license. Another jurisdiction may factor the felony conviction in to a discretionary licensing decision. Another state may rely on a specific list of criminal offences to deny approval.
Even the adoption by many states of the multi-jurisdictional personal history disclosure form is not without complications as most if not all states that accept the application require a supplemental form to fill in gaps in information unique to the jurisdiction.
Despite the lack of blanket reciprocity, states do work together in ways that are helpful to gaming businesses. Many states have memorandums of understanding with one another and foreign jurisdictions to share background investigation materials. Some jurisdictions will even accept another state’s approval of an applicant as a starting point for its own investigation.
Still, the jurisdiction will want to do some level of its own work and take responsibility for sign off on the actual licensing decision. Should something go wrong and a scandal erupt highlighting an issue with a person or entity’s background, it is the state where the problem occurred that will be on the hook to answer for the issue. The jurisdiction is not able to defer responsibility for a problem just because another jurisdiction approved licensure.
Similarly, there is a lack of uniformity regarding hardware location, testing standards, renewal schedules, and reporting, internal control, and audit requirements, as well as a long list of other factors. From an industry stand point this is all understandably duplicative and expensive.
But this is the system we have in the US and it is not likely to change – at least not anytime soon. Companies can complain that it is illogical and waste a lot of time, money and effort arguing with the regulatory bodies or they can accept that businesses cannot always create their own market realities.
Instead, they can do their best to establish strong regulatory relationships and seek accommodation where possible while accepting that the rules of the jurisdiction are the rules that must be followed. Just because a company may not understand the way the US market functions does not mean that the way it functions is nonsense that can be ignored by any company seeking to thrive in the US.
Susan Hensel is co-founder of Hensel Grad P.C., a boutique law firm focused on gaming clients. She was named one of the ten most influential women in igaming by iGB in 2020. Susan is the former director of licensing for the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board and the former two-term president of the International Association of Gaming Regulators. Susan has spoken around the world on gaming law and regulation. All opinions expressed are hers alone.
Per the new rules, sports betting will also be added to the list of approved gaming types. License applications, meanwhile, were made available on the Commission site yesterday (May 20), and will be accepted by the commission from July 1.
The new rules include a $5,000 mandatory application fee for providers that want to offer sports wagering in their facilities. This is in addition to the $2,000 license fee and $2,000 annual renewal fee outlined in the original bill.
An investigation by the KSA found that Raging Rhino’s LuckyDays.com site was accessible to Dutch customers, and offered links to problem gambling help services in Dutch.
In addition, it allowed users to make transactions using Dutch payment processing solution iDEAL. In total, 224,630 transactions – totalling more than €18m – were processed through iDEAL between 1 May and 31 July 2020.
Access to the site in the Netherlands has since been blocked, and the fine paid by Raging Rhino.
The KSA noted that online games of chance remain prohibited until the country’s regulated igaming market opens for business on 1 October.
He said that operators would naturally aim to ramp up customer acquisition efforts as they fight for market share after launch, but warned that excessive advertising could lead to a public backlash, and tighter regulations.
The Coates family, comprising Bet365 co-chief executives Denise and John, and their father and company chair Peter, ranked the highest of gambling businesspeople, placing 17th on the overall list and top in the UK. The Coates family’s wealth was estimated at £8.45bn (€9.83bn/$12.00bn), an increase of £1.28bn from the 2020 edition.
The family have led bet365 since launching the business in 2000 and were this year also named as the UK’s biggest taxpayers, having paid £573.0m during the most recent full financial year.
Meanwhile, Ian and Richard Livingstone, major shareholders in Evolution, were the next highest-ranked names from the gambling sector on the Sunday Times Rich List, placing 27th overall with £6.10bn in wealth, an increase of £2.20bn on last year.
A number of other industry founders saw their place in the rankings fall, including Playtech founder Teddy Sagi, who fell six places to 44th, though his fortune increased by £166m to £3.84bn.
Mark Scheinberg, the son of PokerStars Isai Scheinberg, ranked 49th, down from 44th in 2020 after his wealth declined £36.0m to £3.52bn.
Peter and Fred Done, who run the Betfred bookmaker brand, fell from 123rd to 137th despite their wealth climbing £35.0m to £1.24bn.
Ruth Parasol, the founder of the PartyGaming brand that merged with Bwin Interactive in 2010, was the only other UK-based gambling businessperson to feature in the top 250 by placing 208th, down from 181st in 2020 despite her wealth remaining at £780.0m.
