helps, through trade bodies like the American Gaming Association, iDEA Growth and others and through greater lobbying, but also through creating that responsible, secure and compelling environment for players. Tese elements can, hopefully push iGaming legalisation further through the door in the U.S.
How fair are operator fears that iGaming cannibalises land-based play? Where iGaming is regulated, are you seeing local casinos increasingly embracing iGaming?
In my opinion, the belief that land-based operators have that iGaming cannibalises land-based play is unfounded or based on aging analysis from many years ago. Yes, iGaming offers players the ability to play slots, casino and table style games in the comfort of their own home, something that ultimately means they aren’t in the land-based casinos, but at the same time, there will always be a market for land-based gambling. iGaming can enhance land-based gaming, through the addition of things like omnichannel integrations with loyalty programs and many other areas.
A lot of the lack of forward momentum in greater iGaming legalisation is that misguided belief in cannibalisation of land-based casinos, so it’s a question of not of lobbying, but re-educating the wider industry as to the benefits of iGaming legalisation.
Te US has a deep history and love affair with land-based gambling and the industry employs a lot of people, jobs which politicians fear will be put at risk by legalising iGaming. A lot of the lack of forward momentum in greater iGaming legalisation is that misguided belief in cannibalisation of land-based casinos, so it’s a question of not of lobbying, but re-educating the wider industry as to the benefits of iGaming legalisation.
At Bragg we’re predominantly working with established land-based operators and lotteries looking to add iGaming to their existing offering because they see the value in having this channel available for players, and it’s something I’m sure will continue to increase in the future.
What impact do you see the U.S. duopoly (FanDuel - DraftKings) having on the iGaming market? Can new challengers seriously compete?
While DraftKings and FanDuel have largely locked out the sports betting 34
market, there’s still a significant opportunity to be had in iGaming, in that not every state has it, and greater proliferation will create new markets to enter. Granted the duopoly is starting from a strong position, in that they can cross sell iGaming to players via their existing sports betting operations, giving them a competitive advantage, but there’s always the opportunity for a challenger brand, someone with a truly innovative product or approach, to shine.
We've seen significant legal developments in the sweepstakes market in recent months. What's your take? Is the way to kill off sweeps to regulate iGaming?
Sweepstakes and their expansion across the U.S. certainly are the topic- du-jour at the moment, and while it's interesting, it's also controversial. Since it's not a regulated vertical, I don’t want to weigh in on the market itself, as it’s not an area of priority for us. Every state seems to be dealing with it in its own way, some through legal means, others through
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 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188
