INSIGHT
US LEGISLATION BETCOMPLY
substantial lost tax revenue estimated between 12 to 15 billion US dollars annually. Tis staggering figure eclipses the tax revenue collected in the legalised gambling sector, highlighting the magnitude of the threat posed by illicit gambling operations.
Efforts to combat illegal gambling must address the root causes driving individuals to participate in underground markets, such as limited access to legal options, excessive regulatory burdens, and the allure of potentially higher payouts.
Additionally, enhancing enforcement measures and promoting public awareness about the risks associated with illegal gambling can help mitigate its impact on the legalised gambling industry. Overall, the continued existence and expansion of the illegal market underscore the pressing need for policymakers and industry stakeholders to collaborate on effective strategies to combat illicit gambling activities while simultaneously fostering a robust and regulated gaming environment.
What are the different regulatory approaches to sports betting compared to fantasy sports, and what challenges does this create?
In the US, sports betting is classified as a form of gambling, subject to rigorous regulation. In contrast, fantasy sports are typically regarded as games of skill and thus not subject to the same level of regulation.
Industry stakeholders play a pivotal role in fostering
responsible growth within the US market. Rather than merely meeting regulatory
requirements, stakeholders should strive to exceed
expectations and uphold the highest standards of integrity and player protection. Don’t just comply; don’t just tick the box. Do better.
Tis disparity in regulatory treatment presents several challenges. For operators in the sports betting industry, obtaining licences and adhering to regulatory requirements entail significant time and financial investments. In contrast, participants in the fantasy sports sector face fewer regulatory hurdles, requiring minimal time and resources to engage in the activity.
Consequently, the sports betting industry may face limitations regarding the number of companies able to participate due to the stringent regulatory framework. Tis discrepancy in regulatory burdens creates an imbalance in the competitive landscape between the sports betting and fantasy sports industries.
Furthermore, the perception of sports betting as gambling can lead to stigmatisation and stricter public scrutiny compared to fantasy sports, which may be viewed more favourably as a game of skill. Tis divergence in public perception adds another layer of complexity to the regulatory landscape and can influence public policy decisions regarding the two industries.
Navigating these regulatory disparities and addressing their challenges requires careful consideration from policymakers and industry stakeholders. Balancing the need for consumer protection with fostering
innovation and competition is essential for ensuring the long-term sustainability and integrity of both the sports betting and fantasy sports sectors.
What can industry stakeholders do to ensure the US market grows responsibly?
Industry stakeholders play a pivotal role in fostering responsible growth within the US market. Rather than merely meeting regulatory requirements, stakeholders should strive to exceed expectations and uphold the highest standards of integrity and player protection. Don’t just comply; don’t just tick the box. Do better.
First and foremost, stakeholders must prioritise building trust with regulators, policymakers, and the public. Tis entails demonstrating a commitment to transparency, ethical practices, and responsible gaming initiatives. By going above and beyond compliance and actively engaging with regulatory bodies, stakeholders can help cultivate a positive regulatory environment conducive to industry growth.
Furthermore, industry stakeholders must proactively implement measures to preserve the integrity of sports wagering and ensure the security of the player experience. Tis includes investing in robust security protocols, leveraging advanced technologies such as blockchain and AI to detect and prevent fraudulent activities, and fostering a culture of responsible gambling through education and support programs for players.
By taking a proactive approach to responsible growth, industry stakeholders can help mitigate the risk of reactionary regulatory measures that may stifle innovation and hinder market expansion. Ultimately, by prioritising integrity, transparency, and player welfare, stakeholders can contribute to the sustainable and responsible development of the US market for sports wagering and iGaming.
Despite the size of the market, US iGaming is still in its infancy stages for content suppliers, operators, and regulators. Why has the pace of iGaming legalisation been slow out of the gate? What's the reticence for legislators not putting through online casino bills?
Te slow pace of iGaming legalisation in the US can be attributed to several factors:
1. Responsible gambling concerns: Tere's a legitimate worry among policymakers about the potential for increased addiction and problem gambling associated with online slots and table games. Te ease of access and convenience offered by online gaming platforms raise ethical and regulatory concerns, prompting caution in expanding iGaming.
2. Fear of cannibalisation: Many legislators WIRE / PULSE / INSIGHT / REPORTS P47
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124
