Skip to main content

so is the EU open for trading or not?

Very interesting development here - after the legal battles in France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands and Sweden, particularly involving Betfair, Bwin, Ladbrokes and Stanley International, it seemed that the European Union was forcing the hand of member states to allow free trading across borders for all gambling companies, particularly bookmakers, licensed within the EU. Does this ruling in Portugal open the door for governments to protect their monopolies in the name of fraud and crime prevention?

Bwin Loses EU Court Challenge to Portuguese Gambling Monopoly

Sept. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Bwin Interactive Entertainment AG, an online bookmaker, lost a challenge to Portugal’s sports- betting monopoly after a European Union court said gambling restrictions are legal as long as they target fraud and crime.

Bwin had challenged Portugal’s national gambling monopoly and its extension to online wagering. The ruling today by the European Court of Justice could affect other pending cases including a suit by Ladbrokes Plc against the Netherlands.

The EU’s highest court said restrictions such as in Portugal may be justified to meet certain policy goals, including the fight against crime, as long as they aren’t discriminatory and don’t go beyond what is necessary to achieve their aim. Bwin fell as much as 9.5 percent after the ruling.

...

The lack of harmonized EU rules on games of chance means that the region’s countries “are free to set the objectives of their policy in that area,” as long as they meet certain conditions, the court ruled.



Very interesting, who knows where this might end up...


UPDATE - Bwin responds to ECJ judgment - EU law has not kept pace with internet

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

It's all gone Pete Tong at Betfair!

The Christmas Hurdle from Leopardstown, a good Grade 2 race during the holiday period. But now it will go into history as the race which brought Betfair down. Over £21m at odds of 29 available on Voler La Vedette in-running - that's a potential liability of over £500m. You might think that's a bit suspicious, something's fishy, especially with the horse starting at a Betfair SP of 2.96. Well, this wasn't a horse being stopped by a jockey either - the bloody horse won! Look at what was matched at 29. Split that in half and multiply by 28 for the actual liability for the layer(s). (Matched amounts always shown as double the backers' stake, never counts the layers' risk). There's no way a Betfair client would have £600m+ in their account. Maybe £20 or even £50m from the massive syndicates who regard(ed) Betfair as safer than any bank, but not £600m. So the error has to be something technical. However, rumour has it, a helpdesk reply (not gospel, natur

What shits me about match-fixing 'journalism'.

The anti-wagering media bandwagon has dozens of new members this week, all weighing in an industry they have absolutely no idea about. I'm all for getting the betting industry into the mainstream but it shits me no end when they roll out reports and celebrities who simply don't have a clue what they are talking about and don't bother to check basic facts which key arguments in their story. If this was the financial industry, making errors like this would have them in all sorts of trouble, but the same level of regulation doesn't apply because finance stock markets are supposedly all legitimate and serious, whereas sports betting is just a bit of fun for people who can never win in the long-term... according to the media. This week we have seen the sting by the Telegraph which, on the face of it, looks to be a tremendous piece of investigative work into fixing in English football. But the headlines around it are over-sensationalised yet again. Delroy Facey, a former pla

Racing has a Ponzi scheme - and the fallout will be enormous

When the term ' Ponzi scheme ' is mentioned these days, the names Bernard Madoff and Allen Stanford instantly spring to mind. The pair of them ran multi-billion dollar frauds (US$60bn and $8bn respectively) that destroyed the lives of thousands of investors who had put their life savings into a 'wonderful' investment strategy. How so many people were sucked into the scheme is baffling to those on the outside. The lifestyle, the sales pitch, the success stories of the early investors - I suppose it all adds up. So where does this link to racing you ask? A prominent Australian 'racing identity' this week has been reported to have lost access to a bank account with punters' club funds of $194m in it. Firstly - is there a worse term for anyone to be labelled with that 'racing identity'? It ALWAYS ends up meaning shonky crook! Secondly - who the hell has a punters' club with an active bankroll in the tens of millions? It simply can't be done. T