Gambling Commission

The current phase of regulation of the gambling market in EU jurisdictions is now almost over. Following the Spanish Gambling Regulation Act reaching the statute book, there is only one big jurisdiction left which has not yet regulated its gambling industry according to the EU legislation and European Commission (EC) directives – Germany. Other jurisdictions, such as Greece and Denmark, have yet to complete their journey to regulation, but they are not that far from the finishing line.

It is no secret that many countries were pushed into changing their legislation by court cases brought by commercial operators and infringements proceedings started by the EC. It is not too much of an exaggeration to say that some governments had to be dragged kicking and screaming to allow private operators into the national gambling market. Many countries did the minimum amount that was sufficient to stop EU infringement proceedings and designed regulatory frameworks that favoured, if not outright protected, their state-owned gambling monopolies. Additionally, just to make sure that commercial operators are not too successful, these same governments also imposed a high tax rate. France is a classic case study of this course of action and to a certain extent Spain and Greece are following French footsteps. Germany cannot bring itself to walk even that far.

Within this mix, regulators are given a wide remit to keep a check on commercial operators. ARJEL in France is fairly aggressive in making sure that commercial operators do not infringe the regulations, and even more aggressive with those who do not obtain a French licence but who continue to operate in France.

The role of regulators has up to now not been sufficiently analysed. Are they independent entities who regulate the market, similar to a Financial Services Authority or a Central Bank for the financial sector? Or are regulators in the gambling industry solely an arm of the country’s executive?

So far, the pattern of behaviour of gambling regulators leads observers to think that they act more like the arm of governments than independent referees.

Where state-owned gambling operators have a large market share and are protected by law from competition in certain sectors like lotteries, the behaviour of regulators tends to be important, not only as a matter of fairness, but from the point of view of enabling a truly competitive market. There is something wrong when the state controls the biggest firm or firms in the market and at the same time makes the rules through the regulator.

France is the case in point. The state controlled PMU and FDJ’s dominant position in land-based gambling activities (where they are protected by law) allowed them to gain a competitive advantage in online activities, even thought the law states they have to separate their land-based and online businesses. It took the European Gaming and Betting Association’s complaint to the French Competition Authority (FCA), and the subsequent non-binding opinion of the FCA stating that PMU and FDJ behaviour distorts the market to raise the issue. This is a classic case where the regulator should have intervened. One of ARJEL’s declared missions, after all, is to ensure compliance by operators.

One has to wonder if the reluctance, or frustration, of certain governments in allowing commercial gambling operators to trade is being reproduced in the actions of regulatory bodies.

It is in the interest of a properly functioning market that gambling regulatory bodies are independent, and seen to be independent. Additionally, regulatory bodies need to acquire high calibre professionals with expertise of the gambling industry and the required skill sets to allow them to conduct their supervisory role for Industry Trends in an efficient manner.

It is what everyone expects for regulators in the media/broadcast or financial sectors, why should it be any different for the gambling industry?

The 2005 Gambling Act brought all British slot machine gambling under the rules and regulations of the new Gambling Commission. This act allowed gaming companies to advertise on radio and TV, as well as the possibility of getting bigger payouts on slot machines.

However, those who oppose it felt that it would cause an increase in gambling addictions. The Sports minister countered that sentiment by stating the new laws would actually gives the casinos more control.

Is there cause for concern that more lenient laws regarding slot games could cause an increase in the number of betting addictions? The Norwegian government would probably say yes, as thousands of Norwegian’s have become addicted to playing the slot games; turning one of the most law-abiding countries into a country riddled with citizens who have gambling addictions. It is so bad that the government wants to cut the number of machines from the current 18,000 to just a few thousand, with restrictions on access.

At one time, the major addictions included alcohol, tobacco and drugs. Today, however, there is another addiction that is growing faster than ever in the United States and that is a gambling, including slot machine gambling. Experts say that while adult pathological gamblers are a big problem, it is the teenagers who are falling victim to the allure of winning big money.

If they have jobs, then they will spend every bit of cash they have on betting, then they will turn to begging for money from family. If that doesn’t work, then they will begin stealing whatever they can to feed their habit.

Studies show that on average, a gambler will lose all of their money and then will use credit to continue to play slot machines or other games. They will get over their heads in debt, anywhere from $40,000 to $90,000, before they will even think about getting any type of help for their addiction.

Many will use bankruptcy as a form of relief and many others who cannot find a solution will commit suicide. Legalized gambling is one of the fastest growing industries today, enabling the gaming industry to make a lot of money.

Many people believe that slot machine gambling, video poker machines, video slot machines, or any other type of betting will not cause addictions, yet they do. This type of addiction is considered compulsive gambling and also a mental disorder, known as impulse control. Experts believe this has become more of a problem because access to betting is much easier than it used to be, considering the increase of online games and with so many more legalized gambling establishments opening up.