search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Events


IAGA SUMMIT Macau 2018


Kahil Philander, Assistant Professor, Washington State University, Carson College of Business


Prof. Kahlil Philander is a gambling economist and an Assistant Professor at Washington State University's Carson College of Business. Previously, he oversaw the GameSense responsible gambling program as Director of Social Responsibility at BCLC and served as Director of Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas International Gaming Institute. Dr. Philander has published widely in peer-reviewed academic journals, including Tourism Economics, Frontiers in Psychology, Journal of Gambling Studies, and the Gaming Law Review and Economics. He is a member of the editorial board of International Gambling Studies, Harvard’s Division on Addiction’s Brief Addiction Science Information Source, and the UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal. Prof. Philander has been named to Global Gaming Business Magazine’s 40 under 40 list, and was a co-recipient of the Research of the Year Award from the National Council on Problem Gambling.


As monopolies erode and competition enters the market with better products and prices, it will become harder for illegal gambling organisations to compete. Underground economies flourish because they supply a product that doesn't exist or they have lower prices. If states start to remove some of the distortions that take markets away from a competitive outcome, it will be much tougher for illegal gambling to thrive.


P102 NEWSWIRE / INTERACTIVE /MARKET DATA


The Impact of Illegal Gambling on Regulated Gaming Markets


Illegal gambling continues to present a significant threat to legalised gaming. In the US, more than $2.5bn a year is believed to be wagered through illegal offshore sports betting; the Philippines and China recently initiated joint exercises to crack down on transnational cyber-gambling; and in Europe, United Kingdom operators are now liable for any illegal activities developed by their affiliates. G3 interviews panelists about this pressing IAGA Summit topic


The countries with the highest online gambling revenues are China and the US, both countries with complete online gambling bans. What is the impact this revenue is having both on the US and China, and in wider markets worldwide?


Kahil Philander:Domestically, neither country has a complete ban. Te US allows horse racing bets and has a smattering of online lottery, casino, and other wagering across a few states, while China has had, and may soon return to, online lottery sales. More important is the size and scope of the unregulated market, which impacts both consumers and governments. Governments are unable to generate tax revenue, and consumers are subject to much higher risk of fraud and a lower quality product when it comes to things like payment processing. Globally, the impacts are more complicated. Many of the firms operating in unregulated markets are connected directly or indirectly to regulated companies through their supply chains, sharing similar vendors for example.


Óscar Madureira: Based on the disclosed information, it is quite hard to provide accurate feedback about the impact(s) of online gaming in Mainland China. Data about the topic is scarce and therefore one should not attempt to provide a definitive and binding opinion on the matter. Nevertheless, being an illegal activity online gaming causes some of the negative impact similar illegal activities may cause to the relevant country/jurisdiction. First impact to underline should be the social impact an activity like online gaming may have in the mainland China (and US) population. Without a proper and regulated operation, the state and the country’s relevant authorities are not able to put in place (at least in an effectively manner) responsible gaming measures and other type of gaming addiction controls, which may have strong social repercussions. We all know how younger generations are being influenced by the world wide


web and applications and so online betting an internet activity, is expected to have a strong influence and impact over those young players. Lack of regulation may not allow the government to control access of online gaming and subsequently, to minimise eventual harmful effects like addictive gaming, fraud and prodigality issues.


Another relevant impact to emphasise is tax evasion. Without proper regulations and control, both states will not be able to receive taxes from those illegal operations and use collected funds within their respective societies.


What are the economic and socio-economic costs of not regulating the online gambling space?


Óscar Madureira: Social economical impacts are quite diverse. At the social level, non regulation may cause gambling problem issues because at the end of the day the bets are not scrutinised by any governmental entity. At the same time the non-regulation of a market that is proven to exist may be confused with a certain tacit authorisation of an illegal activity. At an economic level, non-regulation of online gaming will certainly have impact on tax levels (as the state is not collecting any taxes) and, of course, on possible practices of money laundry activies as no authorities are controlling and checking either the provenience of the funds or the acknowledgement of the clients’ profiles.


Kahil Philander:Te largest economic cost is probably the decline in consumer surplus (the value that actual and potential players get from consumption). Research I've done with other economists suggests that consumers are willing to pay more for a regulated product, even over and above what they get from sites with a high level of security. Experience from markets like Britain also suggests that many more people would play online if given the opportunity to do so in


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  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150