EU jurisdictions in the current phase of regulation of the gambling market are almost over. Following the Spanish Gambling Regulation Act, there is only one big jurisdiction left which is not yet regulated according to its gambling industry – 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 far from the finish line.
It is no secret that many countries have been forced into changing their legislation by court cases brought by commercial operators and infringement proceedings. It is not too much of an exaggeration to say that some governments have had the right to be dragged out to private operators into the national gambling market slot online.
In many countries, the minimum amount that is required to stop EU infringement proceedings and designed regulatory frameworks is favored, if not outright protected, by their state-owned gambling monopolies. Additionally, just to make sure that commercial operators are not so successful, these same governments also imposed a higher tax rate. France is a classic case study of this course of action and to some extent Spain and Greece are the following French footsteps. Germany can’t bring itself to that far.
Within this mix, regulators are the commercial operators on a check for a wide remit. ARJEL in France is more aggressive in making sure that commercial operators do not have infringement regulations, and even more aggressive ones who do not have a French license but who continue to operate in France.
The role of regulators has 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 behavioral gambling regulators leads observers to think that they are more independent than the arm of governments.
Where state-owned gambling operators have a large market share and are protected by the law, some regulators have tended to look at the regulatory tends to be just as important, not just as a matter of fairness, but from a point of view. truly competitive market. There is something wrong with the state controls the largest firm or companies in the market and at the same time the regulator through the rules.
France is the point in the case. 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, even thought the law states they own separate land-based and online businesses. It took the issue of the European Gaming and Betting Association to the French Competition Authority (FCA), and the FCA’s stance on non-binding opinion that raised the issue of PMU and FDJ behavioral distorts to the market. This is a classic case where the regulator must intervene. One of ARJEL’s announced missions, after all, is to ensure compliance with operators.
One has to wonder if the reluctance, or frustration, of certain types of commercial gambling operators is the trade-off of regulatory bodies.
Gambling regulatory bodies are independent, and seen to be independent. Additionally, regulatory bodies need to acquire high caliber professionals with the expertise of the gambling industry and the required skill sets to conduct their supervisory role in an efficient manner.
Regulators in the media / broadcast or financial sectors, why should it be any different for the gambling industry?
Those who regulate the gambling regulators are the most powerful body, which not only defines the Gambling Laws but also the industry trends for change in the gambling industry. GBGC for Me —– writes. Thanks!