Insight
SPORTS BETTING The future of in-play
Why are lawmakers seeking to restrict and ban in-play bets?
Tennis in particular has been the focus of a wide investigation into the links between gambling and in- play match fixing after a number of high profile allegations were made by BuzzFeed and the BBC in 2016. An Independent Review Panel (IRP) published its final report two years later. In order to protect the integrity of sports, The IRP argued that there should be no live score data or live streaming of tennis’ lowest- tier professional tournaments.
In-play betting has been a key driver for the betting industry. Innovations in live betting portfolios have helped drive fan engagement and led to much more betting opportunities for players. However in the opinion of many lawmakers in-play betting is linked to match manipulation and sports betting corruption. In addition, in-play betting has raised concerns among responsible gambling advocates due to its perceived relationship with problem gambling behaviour.
A number of jurisdictions have introduced the prohibition of in-play betting while others are looking to limit certain in-play markets. But why? What is the logic behind banning such a popular form of betting and does it make sense?
In-play sports betting corruption scandals have been associated with certain sports like tennis and cricket for years due to their nature. As highlighted by the UK Gambling Commission these are sports “where a single participant can affect the outcome of a bet, for example, the winner of the next set in a tennis match or the next player out in a cricket match.” Generally speaking these take place in lower-level competitions, where players are paid less and attendance rates are low.
Tennis in particular has been the focus of a wide investigation into the links between gambling and in- play match fixing after a number of high profile allegations were made by BuzzFeed and the BBC in 2016. An Independent Review Panel (IRP) published its final report two years later. In order to protect the integrity of sports, Te IRP argued that there should be no live score data or live streaming of tennis’ lowest-tier professional tournaments. To begin with the IRP proposed that live data for all of the International World Tennis Tour comprising all the minor events that offered prize money up to $15,000 and $25k events be banned. Te IRP eventually allowed for the continued collection and distribution of in-play data on World Tennis Tour events at the $25k level.
P30 WIRE / PULSE / INSIGHT / REPORTS THE DEBATE OVER BANNING IN-PLAY BETTING
Te debate concerning with banning in-play on sports integrity grounds has been ongoing for years. An independent and ground breaking review published by Holland’s ASSER Institute in January 2015, argued that there was a general belief amongst many lawmakers that in-play brought with it risks to the integrity of sports.
Despite this the report found that sports betting corruption was mostly linked to the final outcome of a match, with the majority of suspicious betting activities taking place in particular in Asian Handicap markets.
Te study found no correlation between in-play betting and possible instances of betting-related match-fixing that would justify a prohibition.
Broadly speaking, the UK Gambling Commission came to the same conclusion. In its September 2016 “In-Play (In-Running) Betting: Position Paper” the Commission outlined the reasons behind its decision not to ban it.
Te Commission said that while “there is potential for individuals to exploit in-play betting for criminal or otherwise inappropriate gain” other forms of betting “also have similar potential for exploitation”. Consequently the Commission did not consider that in-play betting required further regulatory controls arguing that: “Despite the concerns raised about the
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
