Month: February 2024

The debate took place yesterday (26 February), after a petition on the matter registered by Jockey Club chief executive Nevin Truesdale reached the 100,000 signature-threshold in November. This is the amount of signatures needed for parliamentary debate.

Weighing in on the debate, Davies – who formerly chaired the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Betting and Gaming – said that he was representing two groups in particular.

“Let me make it clear at the outset that I am speaking up for two groups today. One is the horse racing industry, but first and foremost I am speaking up for punters. The people who have been largely ignored in this long-running debate and tug-of-war over affordability checks,” he explained.

“They often get caught up in the crossfire of the arguments between the well-funded betting industry and the well-funded anti-gambling campaigners.”

Davies acknowledged that encouraging players to only bet what they can afford is not a controversial opinion.

“However, what the government and the Gambling Commission are proposing is completely unacceptable,” he added.

“It is unacceptable that the government, the Gambling Commission and the bookmakers will basically, between them, decide how much each individual punter can afford to spend on their betting and the punter gets virtually no say whatsoever.”

Davies defends horseracing industry

Davies continued by honing in on the origin of the debate – the potential effect of affordability checks on the horse racing industry. He stated that British racing is the largest spectator sport in the UK, behind football, and brings in “a huge amount” of foreign investment.

“The wonderful sport of horse racing derives much of its income from the gambling industry. So the more people go to the black market, the less money there is for the sport of horse racing,” Davies continued.

“The government cannot possibly allow themselves to introduce measures, however well meaning, that will have a devastating effect on this great sport.”

Concerns for the racing industry in the shadow of affordability checks have generated much discussion. In October last year, Lord Lipsey, Labour Party peer and chair of Premier Greyhound racing, spoke out against affordability checks and their potential effect on greyhound racing. Lipsey had said that checks on high-spend customers would damage greyhound racing.

In the same month, gambling harm prevention charity GamCare expressed support for affordability checks, but questioned threshold levels for the checks. The charity said this could mean that players could lose significant amounts of money before checks are implemented.

Carolyn Harris focuses on checks for high-spenders

In response to Davies, Carolyn Harris MP spoke about the potential positive impact affordability checks could have on the vulnerable, if implemented in the right way.

Harris noted that, according to the Commission, 22.5 million people in the UK gamble. This equates to around 44% of the population.

The use of the 44% statistic however, does not confirm the definition of what “gamble” equates to. This has proven to be a major debating issue given there is a stark difference between a bet every few years on the Grand National and regular activity.

She also added that the Commission and the government hold responsibility for those who suffer from gambling harm.

“The overwhelming majority [gamble] without any issue, but not everyone,” Harris stated. “When it comes to those for whom gambling is an addiction, the Gambling Commission and the government have a duty to act responsibly and protect them from harm.”

Harris also emphasised that she is not anti-gambling. “I am very fond of visiting the racetrack, as I am the bingo hall,” she continued. “I want to protect vulnerable people.”

She explained that the most “logical way forward” would be to implement affordability checks on those “gambling larger sums”.

“Those would not stop anyone who can afford it betting as much as they choose, but it would stop those who cannot.”

Where do we go from here?

Understandably, and potentially the positive that can be taken from the debate, is the hopeful realisation that racing could be treated separately to “games of chance” given the impact it will have on the British economy.

The big question now, is what can be seen as actionable in terms of next steps, and whether yesterday’s debate (and the support shown by MPs) will have any meaningful impact on changing policy.

At the time of writing, iGB has requested comment from the Commission, but is yet to receive any information.

The Commission has also regularly dismissed fears of the black market as “overstated”, a worrying trend given the mounting evidence in Germany that over-regulation severely handicaps regulated operators.

Worryingly, and as we saw in yesterday’s debate, there also still seems to be a lack of understanding as to how the funding of racing would be impacted by a reduction in regulated online gambling.

While it is common knowledge to many in the UK industry that racing is funded via the statutory levy, this knowledge did not seem to be evident during yesterday’s debate.

By far, affordability checks have been the most controversial aspect of the Gambling Act review white paper since its release almost a year ago. They have also become a stand-out element of the review’s subsequent consultations.

Industry reaction

Melanie Ellis, partner at Northridge law, says that the debate naturally skewed towards the horseracing industry as “many of the MPs speaking in the debate represented constituencies where horseracing is a key employer”.

She adds that there looked to be a lack of understanding on how the proposed affordability checks will differ from checks already in place.

“In reality, many licensed operators are conducting detailed affordability assessments at lower triggers than the proposed enhanced assessments at £1,000 in a 24 hour period or £2,000 in a 90 day period, because they rightly fear the Gambling Commission will fine them or even revoke their licence if they do not,” she explained.

Ultimately, frictionless early checks and defined triggers for further checks are an enhancement on the industry’s current circumstances, Ellis concludes.

“Regardless of the views of the government, the Commission will continue to expect operators to take action in response to evidence of vulnerability or unaffordable gambling,” she says. “As such, my view is that the proposal for frictionless early checks and defined triggers for enhanced checks represent an improvement on the current situation for customers, operators and indeed the horseracing industry.”

Rossi McKee, founder and vice-president of CT Interactive, discusses the 25th anniversary of CT Gaming. From humble beginnings in the land-based sector in Eastern Europe to now topping charts in more than 50 countries worldwide it is clear the company has no intention of slowing down.

Sturgis, a professor at the London School of Economics, did label the study “exemplary in all respects”. However, as has been the case in the past with the GC, its tendency to produce unreliable statistics was a noticeable theme for Sturgis, who cast doubt over the accuracy of the GSGB, which is due to be published this summer.

Sturgis said: “Until there is a better understanding of the errors affecting the new survey’s estimates of the prevalence of gambling and gambling harm, policymakers must treat them with due caution, being mindful to the fact there is a non-negligible risk that they substantially overstate the true level of gambling and gambling harm in the population.”

Hardly the glowing endorsement the GC has made out, Sturgis’ concerns reflect a wider lack of trust in the commission’s work. David Brown, a UK industry veteran of 50 years, highlighted the GC’s misrepresentation of affordability checks statistics in an interview with iGB in 2023.

GC’s relationship with statistics

In the wake of Sturgis’ review, gambling advisory business Regulus Partners stated there was “little to dispel” the concerns over the GSGB’s potential statistical inaccuracies, believing the “inconvenient truth” had been glossed over.

Among the previous data faux pas that Regulus pointed out were the GC’s withholding of information on consumer views of affordability checks, as well as the chair of its Advisory Board for Safer Gambling implying statistical accuracy was unimportant.

GC chief executive Andrew Rhodes has promised to make a stand against the commission’s perceived lack of care on statistics, although Regulus described Rhodes’ campaign as a “notably flaccid and lopsided affair”.

Melanie Ellis, a vastly experienced gambling regulatory lawyer and partner at Northridge Law, concurs with the concerns of both Sturgis and Regulus, highlighting the significant differences in the GC’s prior data when compared to NHS surveys on gambling.

While Ellis feels it’s too late for the impact of potential inaccuracies to directly affect the implementations of key white paper measures, she says it could play a wider role in the public debate over the issue of gambling harms.

“The new official problem gambling rate could be used to justify adjusting these [white paper measures] in the future,” Ellis declared. “The GSGB’s statistics will soon become official statistics and inevitably influence the public debate.

“It may be that the results are accurate while previous studies were not, but an around tenfold difference in problem gambling rates at least warrants further research, tests and experimentation to establish the accuracy of the new data before the commission even considers it becoming official statistics.”

Loss of trust in the GC

One of the biggest consequences of the GC’s patchy history with statistical accuracy is the loss of a key component when it comes to regulatory boards – trust.

Ellis echoes Regulus’ view on the GC’s “marginalisation of legitimate concerns” related to the GSGB, placing particular emphasis on the commission’s failure to publish the full data from the survey’s pilot and experimental stages, saying such a move misses the chance to “engender trust”.

So, how does the GC go about restoring that trust? In Ellis’ view, complete transparency, much like the GC asks of operators, is the only way the commission can re-establish the faith that has dissipated in recent times.

“I would like to see the commission acting in a reciprocal way to its expectations of operators, which include working in an open and co-operative way and being open and transparent in its dealings with its licensees,” Ellis continues.

“This would include publishing all information and data which could have a material impact on a licensee’s business.”

Pressure is growing on the GC and Ellis believes that must be kept on to ultimately force it to change its ways. Regulus also states the GC is at a crucial juncture, where its choices will decide whether it can restore the trust it has lost.

“It’s important that the commission completes the additional research and evaluation recommended by Professor Sturgis,” Ellis said. “I would recommend to operators and other stakeholders that they hold the commission to account on this, by pressuring it to be open about the outcome of that process.”

GC “taking control” of problem gambling data

There are other ethical considerations for the GSGB too, such as the GC’s decision to neglect the NHS Health Survey and instead produce its own data on gambling harms.

Regulus highlighted the GC’s choice to ignore the NHS Health Survey’s perceived status as the “gold standard” as a source of official statistics, which could lead to the “distortion” of public policy and generally harm the UK industry.

Ellis feels the GC’s neglect of the NHS Health Survey is a sign of the commission’s plan to “take control” of problem gambling data, despite there being evidence that the NHS survey is more accurate.

“The NHS Survey has much higher response rates than the GSGB,” Ellis added. “Further, Professor Sturgis’ report highlights findings that people are more likely to take part in a survey specifically about a topic relevant to them, which means the commission’s survey is likely to over-recruit highly engaged gamblers compared to the NHS survey, skewing the results.”

Regulus also said Sturgis was unlikely to have been made aware of the GC’s lack of regard towards statistics in recent years and therefore didn’t factor them completely into his review. As a result, a useful opportunity to hold the GC to account for such concerns had fallen by the wayside.

Slot stake limits

On Friday, the UK government announced new maximum stake measures for online slots, with those aged 18-24 to be limited to £2 per spin and over-25s £5. The measures will come in from September.

In response, Regulus said the one-size fits all approach makes “little sense”, given its ignorance of data that allows online operators to intervene in a way that land-based casino does not offer.

Regulus believes the move will drive at-risk customers onto the growing black market, stating: “Customers are already voting for higher limits by shopping around.

“We believe that the risk to channeling is actually higher than the c. 7% that the £465m slots-specific disruption suggests.”

Regulus also cited the loss in industry revenue and the resulting tax that the measures will bring, which it estimated at £460m and £100m respectively.

Regulus’ declaration that the black market is growing has basis. Data published by Yield Sec revealed the number of illegal operators increased “fourfold” between 2021 and 2022. That number then doubled again during 2023.

According to Yield Sec, this means that illegal gambling now makes up 4% of the UK’s online gambling market share and gross gaming revenue (GGR).

“Anti-gambling agenda”

For those who believe the GC has an anti-gambling agenda, this week will have done little to stem those feelings.

It’s a point of view that Ellis understands, commenting: “The commission has unfortunately created an impression that it picks and chooses what it publishes to support its agenda.

“Its determination to press ahead with these survey results, despite real concerns that they significantly overestimate rates of problem gambling, fuels criticism that it now has an anti-gambling agenda.”

These are uncertain times for the UK market and the GC’s perceived shortcomings are doing little to ease the reservations of punters and operators.

We already knew 2024 was going to be a crucial year for gambling in the UK. Based on the GC’s actions over the first couple of months of it, the choppy waters don’t look like calming any time soon.

Sweden already has in place a ban on licensed operators offering or providing credit under the Gambling Act. However, the government is seeking to strengthen these measures with a more in-depth ban.

This, the ministry said, is to help prevent gambling harm among players in Sweden. It said people with gambling problems are at an increased risk of over-indebtedness and removing credit as an option for gambling will reduce this risk. 

The proposed measures state operators and gambling agents would not be able to process deposits or bets financed by credit. This would be regardless of how and when the credit is provided, including credit cards.

Duty of care focus

The plans also re-emphasise that licensees in Sweden must have in place duty of care measures to discourage excessive gambling. It is proposed national regulator Spelinspektionen should be authorised to set requirements for what these action plans should contain.

This, the ministry says, is a clause suggested by Spelinspektionen to ensure licensees in Sweden improve duty of care efforts.

“Gambling for money on credit can lead to great financial difficulties,” minister of financial markets Niklas Wykman said. “Therefore, we are now stopping that possibility. It is not reasonable for gambling companies or gambling agents to contribute to individuals taking such large risks.”

If approved, the measures will begin to come into effect from 1 September this year. The full credit ban will not be put in place until 1 April next year.

Sweden regulator backs credit card ban

Spelinspektionen has long supported heightened measures to stop consumers using credit to gamble in Sweden.

In November last year, Spelinspektionen called for a full ban on gambling by credit card. This was in response to a government study on risky lending, namely the Enhanced Consumer Protection Against Risky Lending and Over-indebtedness report.

The investigation concluded the reasons against introducing a credit card gambling ban outweighed the reasons for a ban. 

However, Spelinspektionen reiterated its position that the Gambling Act outlaws licensees from encouraging players to borrow. Those that do, it said, are contravening their duty of care, as outlined in the legislation. The regulator also noted in a recent survey of licensees that some 60% offered payment by credit card.

Following a market trend

Should the ban be approved, Sweden would be following other major markets in outlawing gambling with credit.

The UK announced a ban on use of credit cards to gamble in 2020, with the ban introduced that April. The Gambling Commission determined the implementation of the ban had been smooth and did not lead to “unintended consequences”.

In September, Australia’s government tabled the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2023 to ban the use of credit cards. 

Sweden’s Nordic cousin, Norway, also has a similar ban in place.

Fanatics Betting and Gaming (FBG) acquired PointsBet US in August 2023 for $225.0m. FBG is now phasing out the PointsBet brand across US states, with Iowa becoming the latest last week.

The PointsBet brand remains active in a handful of US states. FBG has completed the online rebrand in 12 states, while retail betting venues are active in both Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

While the sale meant PointsBet lost access to the growing US market, it allows it to focus on activities elsewhere. PointsBet remains active in Canada as well as in its native Australia.

Record H1 in Australia, Canada revenue rockets

For the six months to 31 December 2023, statutory revenue from continuing operations was AU$117.9m. This was 6.7% ahead of $95.3m in the previous year.

Growth, PointsBet said, was partly driven by a record performance in Australia. Revenue in the country climbed 6.7% to $101.7m, with strong activity across its core sports betting offering of NBA, NFL and football. This growth came despite a 4.1% drop in turnover in the country.

H1 also marked the first half in which Australia was EBITDA-positive for PointsBet. EBITDA in H1 hit $900,000, compared to a $20.2m loss in the previous year.

Turning to Canada, revenue rocketed 137.3% year-on-year to $15.9m. This comprised $9.5m in total igaming revenue, up 126.2%, and $6.3m in sports betting revenue, a rise of 152.0%. Sports betting growth was helped by a 17.4% rise in turnover, whereas for igaming, the new partnership with Strive Gaming helped improve PointsBet’s position in Canada.

PointsBet also noted the Canadian business is on track to achieve break-even EBITDA by the 2025 financial year. In H1, EBITDA loss was reduced from $19.4m to $12.0m.

Net loss shortens on back of revenue growth at PointsBet

Turning to costs, total operating expenses were reduced by 29.2% to $72.1m in H1. Spending was lower across all areas, with the main outgoing of sales and marketing being cut 30.2% to $42.4m.

Net finance costs amounted to $12.1m, leaving a pre-tax loss of $32.7m, compared to $53.6m in H1 of 2023. PointsBet did not pay tax but did account for $3.7m in loss from discounted operations in the US and Europe. In the previous year, this loss stood at $124.6m.

As such, net loss for H1 was reduced from $178.2m to $36.4m. In addition, EBITDA loss was cut from $49.9m to $20.6m.

PointsBet welcomes Lucas as new technology chief

Meanwhile, PointsBet has appointed Daniel Lucas as its new group chief technology officer. He will join the business on 1 September and replace Jerry Bowskill, who is stepping down following the FBG deal in August 2023.

Lucas takes on the role having served as global director of trading technology at Flutter for almost two years. Prior to this, he worked in various roles at SportsBet for nine years.

“We are very pleased that a senior executive of Dan’s quality and experience is joining PointsBet,” PointsBet group CEO Sam Swanell said. 

“Dan’s understanding of complex platform and trading operations, in particular algorithmic trading, risk and advanced analytics together with his strong people leadership skills, are valuable assets to PointsBet’s Australian and Canadian operations, as we continue to invest in our market-leading live betting and multi capability through Odds Factory.”

Swanell also paid tribute to the outgoing Bowskill. He said: “Jerry has made an outstanding contribution to PointsBet over his tenure leading our global technology organisation. He has been an integral part of the group executive leadership team and his experience and expertise has proven invaluable as we have planned for and executed the transition of our US business to Fanatics.

“I would like to thank Jerry for all he has done for PointsBet and wish him all the best in his future endeavours.”

Rita admitted to four breaches of the ITIA Tennis Anti-Corruption Programme (TACP). The ITIA said these betting-related violations took place between 2018 and 2020.

Among the breaches were incidents of wagering on tennis matches and the failure to report a corrupt approach. Both flout rules set out in the TACP. 

Rita will be banned from all forms of professional tennis from 26 January 2024 through to 25 April 2025. The ban covers both playing at or attending events sanctioned by ITIA members and national associations.

In addition, Rita, who reached a career-high ITF singles ranking of 1,712 in June last year, has been fined $5,000 (£3,945/€4,616), with $4,000 suspended.

Tennis corruption: a continuing issue for ITIA

Rita is the latest player to be banned as part of efforts by the ITIA to tackle corruption in tennis.

Earlier this month, France’s Maxence Broville was banned for a total of seven years. This was after he failed to co-operate with an anti-corruption investigation.

However, it is not just players causing headaches for the ITIA. Bosnian official Damjan Dejanovic has been provisionally suspended in relation to pending corruption charges. The ITIA also banned Bulgarian official Stefan Milanov for 16 years over corruption offences.

One of the focus areas for the ITIA has been a criminal case over a wider match-fixing case in Belgium. Collaboration between the ITIA and Belgian authorities led to a five-year custodial sentence for syndicate leader Grigor Sargsyan.

An initial 16 players were banned during Sargsyan’s conviction in November last year. Since then, more players have also been handed sanctions.

French player Leny Mitjanam was banned for 10 years after being found guilty of corruption and match-fixing offences. Tunisian player Anis Ghorbel was also banned for three years over fixing matches in 2016 and 2017.

The research was commissioned by the Campaign for Fairer Gambling (CFG). It analysed how players chose to bet during the 2024 Super Bowl, looking specifically at the performance of the black market. Further research on the gambling share between regulated and unregulated markets is expected in the next few days.

Yield Sec reported that, in total, 350 million bets were placed on this year’s Super Bowl, at a value of $5.4bn (£4.26bn/€4.98bn). The total bets were up by 22.8%, while the betting value shot up 20.0% year-on-year.

In total, 228 million wagers were illegal and 122 million were legal. Illegal bets generated $4.0bn while legal bets made up the remaining $1.4bn. In comparison, the 2023 Super Bowl brought in 286 million bets, split between 186 million illegal bets and 100 million legal bets. Of the $4.5m generated last year, $1.1bn came from legal bets and $3.4bn from illegal wagers.

data shared by yield sec highlights the pervasive issue of the black market across the us

Yield Sec calculated that the illegal betting market makes up 65% of the Super Bowl’s betting market, with the legal market taking up 35% share.

“Substitution from illegals to legals is simply not happening at the pace it should – illegals are used as brands of choice and convenience, with some substitution to legals for offers and account opening incentives, when available, as with the Super Bowl,” states the report.

Significant growth in black market year-on-year

Yield Sec noted that the illegal Super Bowl betting market had grown yearly, with 42 million more illegal Super Bowl bets recorded from this year’s game. A total of $546m more was also wagered using the black market this year.

While growth was smaller, the legal market also saw improvements, with 22 million more bets recorded year-on-year. There was also a $258m growth in legal betting value.

As to why the illegal betting market continued to hold precedence at this year’s Super Bowl, the report noted that illegal operators took advantage of “sports and allied entertainment” bets. These included bets centred on Taylor Swift – for example, how many times she would appear on camera – which those operators would use to override a legal operator’s offerings.

in total, 86% more bets were placed with illegal operators when compared to the legal market

“Illegals are, quite simply, everywhere that the Super Bowl conversation is taking place online and very close by with transactional opportunities for all Americans,” read the report.

Yield Sec also highlighted that audiences are likely drawn to illegal operators due to the wider range of bet choices and bonuses.

Black market continues to hold control

Ismail Vali, CEO and founder of Yield Sec, said that the illegal betting market clearly still has power over regulated play,

“It’s troubling to see the proximity of illegal gambling to our audiences and the core of the Super Bowl’s conversation and commerce,” said Vali. “With illegal brands capturing nearly two-thirds of all bets on the game, the challenge of shifting control from illegal to legal operators in the online betting and gaming marketplace is more apparent than ever.”

He added that Super Bowl LVIII emphasised the need for regulated play, as illegal betting “threatens the integrity of sports and the gambling industry” and “hampers the potential for increased revenues, tax contributions and consumer protection”.

“The data post-Super Bowl 2024 underscores the critical need for a united effort to regulate, police and enforce the online gambling marketplace,” Vali continued.

As part of iGB’s Super Bowl analysis, Regulus Partners noted that illegal bookmakers now make up just 19% of traditional betting engagement. However, it added that legal bookmakers are channelling only 45% of Super Bowl betting traffic.

CFG makes its play for federal control

Derek Webb, founder and funder of CFG, used YieldSec’s figures to advocate for federal oversight.

“The legal gambling sector sold lawmakers across America the mirage of the regulated market supplanting the black market,” said Webb. “The legal gambling sector, which should be disappointed, has thus far been allergic to any and all federal involvement.”

Webb seemingly claims that legal brands have failed to supersede the black market. However, many states still don’t have a legal gambling market.

“We hope America’s legal gambling sector and its trade groups will reconsider and join us in calling for a federal crackdown on illegal gambling.”

Beyond illegal gambling harming their market, the legal gambling industry has actively campaigned for decisive action to stamp out the offshore threat. Among these is Bill Miller, CEO of the American Gaming Association (AGA). Commenting on the AGA’s third-quarter results, for 2023, Miller said that “record numbers” of Americans were moving to legal and regulated sportsbooks.

“This sustained demand only reinforces the need for federal and state enforcement against illegal, offshore operators,” Miller continued.

A report from the AGA released in 2022 estimated that the US illegal gambling market may be worth $44.2bn per year.

Industry response

The bigger issue and the question that must be asked, is whether federal regulation will serve to solve this problem.

As has been seen, and prevalently highlighted in Germany, excessive regulation on a federal level only serves to drive further traffic to unregulated operators.

Many in the industry take a similar view.

“You already have a Federal Government outside of the guardrails established under the Constitution and now we have someone from across the pond once again telling us how we should to run our government,” said B Global Advisors managing partner Brendan Bussmann in response.

“This isn’t the Beatles. It’s time to reject another uninformed British Invasion.”

Published by the health minister, Karl Lauterbach (SPD), the report covers activity across online and land-based gambling in Germany. It estimates a sharp rise from the official figure of 400,000 reported five years ago in 2019.

The study also notes a rise in problematic gaming behaviour over the same period. In 2019, the ministry said approximately 0.7% of the population were addicted to gambling in some form. Now, the study estimates this figure to be 8% for the 18-70 age group.

Concerns over how study came about

However, while the figures may seem alarming, there are doubts over their validity. The German Sports Betting Association (DSWV) says opposition politicians and industry experts are raising concerns over the report.

Much of this is related to how the study came about. Until 2019, gambling addiction research within Germany was the responsibility of the Federal Centre for Health Education (BZgA). However, this is about to be dissolved at the request of SPD. The Hamburg Institute for Interdisciplinary Addiction and Drug Research (ISD) has taken on the official role.

Publication of the study follows an initial release of data in November 2023. The Gambling Atlas featured a rough overview of the results of the addiction survey. However, critics say this data came just three months after applying for funding for the initiative. 

Simone Borchardt of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU), the second largest party in the German Bundestag, says the BMG is “constantly entangling itself in contradictions”.

“There is reason to suspect that agreements were made in advance between the study authors and the BMG,” Borchardt told WELT. “For me, this casts considerable doubt on the neutrality of the study.” She added that she expects the BMG to fully investigate the matter.

Critics raise doubt over study figures

The DSWV says critics are also sceptical over the figures in the new study. It says there is no explanation for the sudden increase in the susceptibility of Germans to gambling addiction. Notably, the regulated gambling industry’s turnover has remained the same during this period. Therefore, it says experts are unsure over whether the findings are due to methodological weaknesses.

The organisation quotes Katharina Schüller, head of consulting business Stat-up, who has hit out at the “questionable precision and lack of transparency” of the study. In a 140-page report, Schüller concludes the survey is “not a reliable basis for decision-making with regards to the evaluation and adaptation of legal regulations”.

“For representative samples, you have to carefully check who you reach and who you don’t reach,” Schüller told WELT. “This is basic knowledge of survey statistics and the authors did not guarantee this.

“If you then take into account that only 10% of those contacted responded to the online survey, then the argument doesn’t exactly become any more valid.”

Report cannot support regulatory changes in Germany

Such is the level of controversy over the report, the CDU’s Borchardt says it cannot support changing regulations on gambling. First referring back to the Gambling Atlas last year, Borchardt says this is questionable. 

“It is obvious to me that the work here was not done properly,” Borchardt said. “In the interests of scientific transparency, the data must be published.” She adds that the “explosive increase in gambling addicts” cannot be explained by possible effects from the pandemic. 

Building on this, the DSWV questions whether the government is using the sharp increase to justify any legal changes. The DSWV went as far to describe such potential measures as “ideological bans”.

The OCCC’s decision came after NCAA president Charlie Baker sent a letter to the commission’s executive director Matt Schuler, requesting a ban to be implemented on player-specific prop wagers for its games. The letter was also endorsed by Ohio’s governor, Mike DeWine.

Bettors will no longer be able to wager on markets such as a quarterback’s passing yards or a basketball player’s points for NCAA games. Operators have until 1 March to introduce the restrictions.

In the OCCC’s announcement, the commission stated it would become the 25th state to either prohibit or limit player-specific prop bets on NCAA contests. The ban’s aim is to protect NCAA athletes against potential harassment from bettors, as well as curb match fixing.

Ohio only launched legal sports betting in January 2023. In July, the state passed a law that looks to prevent those who have threatened athletes from placing sports wagers, a precursor to this new ban on prop bets.

In response to the ban, Governor DeWine said: “The Ohio Casino Control Commission took quick action to protect student athletes from unnecessary and potentially harmful threats.

“Amending rules to focus bets on the team and away from individual athletes will improve the marketplace in Ohio and properly focus betting attention on the teams and away from individual student athletes.”

NCAA’s Ohio ban the next step in fight against gambling harms

This move is the latest indicator of the NCAA’s growing emphasis on offering greater protection to student athletes, as well as preserving the integrity of its competitions.

The NCAA is advocating for fresh laws, creating new model legislative processes that it recommends states pass. Among the other proposals it is suggested that states include a mandatory reporting hotline. This would allow gambling authorities to report harassment or coercive behaviour to law enforcement.

The NCAA also wants regulations to identify prohibited bettors and prevent individuals younger than 21 from wagering on sports. In terms of betting advertising, ads should include information about the hotline, problem gambling and prohibitions on harassment.

In addition, the NCAA wants a portion of revenue from sports wagering to be allocated to gambling harm education.

The NCAA also launched its first sports wagering elearning module in October, aiming to educate student athletes on gambling-related harms and the dangers of them.

The NCAA’s call for new measures comes in the wake of a 2023 study that revealed one in four leading US college sports programmes had been notified of student athletes being harassed by somebody with gambling interests in the last 12 months.

The study found that 27% of schools from the so-called Power Five conferences had dealt with a sports wagering problem among their athletes or staff within the past year. This is compared to just 3% when the same question was asked in 2019.

The jurisdictions were confirmed as being removed from the grey list following the FATF Plenary, which took place from 21-24 February.

Gibraltar was named alongside Uganda, Barbados and the United Arab Emirates. The Plenary noted that all four jurisdictions had made “significant progress” in addressing anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF) issues that had been identified during previous evaluations.

All four had also previously agreed to an Action Plan, wherein certain issues had to be resolved within a stipulated timeframe.

“These countries will no longer be subject to the FATF’s increased monitoring process,” the FATF noted. “This comes after a successful on-site visit to each of these countries. Each country will work with the FATF-style regional body, of which it is a member, to continue strengthening their AML/CTF/CPF regimes.”

Also at the Plenary, Kenya and Namibia were added to the grey list, formally known as the list of Jurisdictions Under Increased Monitoring. No new countries or jurisdictions were added to the highest-risk category – the High-Risk Jurisdictions subject to a call for action.

The FATF also appointed Elisa de Anda Madrazo as its next president for a term of two years. Previously, de Anda Madrazo was FATF vice-president from 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2023. Her new role will begin on 1 July 2024.

Gibraltar’s long history with the grey list

Gibraltar has been the subject of a two-year long battle with the FATF, after it was placed on the grey list in June 2022. It was mandated to stay on the list for one year until it could be re-evaluated. At this same Plenary, Malta was removed from the grey list.

The jurisdiction adopted an action plan – comprising of two points – following its addition to the list.

At the time, Andrew Lyman, Gibraltar’s gambling commissioner said he was unsure as to why Gibraltar was added to the grey list. He stated that it had no “fundamental, systemic anti-money laundering (AML) or terrorist financing weaknesses.”

But he added that he was “highly committed” to getting Gibraltar off the list “in the fastest time possible”. Lyman also confirmed that Gibraltar would not issue more sanctions due to its grey-listing.

In October that year, Gibraltar’s government announced that it would defer reporting its progress on being removed from the grey list. The following February, Gibraltar was confirmed to remain on the grey list, although the FATF noted that there had been progress.

In June 2023, Gibraltar was warned that the deadline had expired on the jurisdiction’s May 2023 deadline for its action plan completion.