Propaganda Wars: the sports integrity question

THE TOPIC OF bookmakers paying a betting right to event organisers and sports federations for the use of their competition names and, more importantly, “to ensure the sporting integrity” of competitions they offer bets on, reared its ugly head again last month.

Using the term ugly may seem harsh, but to use it is fair. This is because the topic crops up every time sports rights holders, or more precisely the Sports Rights Owners Coalition (SROC), the body which among others represents the Premier League, FIFA, UEFA and that paragon of sporting virtue, the International Automotive Federation (FIA), feeds the UK and international press with its biased and plainly commercially-motivated fodder.

Said press is then more than happy to regurgitate the message (‘if it bleeds, it leads,’ as the saying goes) and run articles that are highly critical of the betting industry, saying bookmakers are the enablers of betting activity and should pay for any damage they cause such as the potential for match fixing and corrupt betting.

UK daily newspaper The Guardian ran an opinion piece on the nefarious effects of bookmakers and betting exchanges such as Betfair on sporting events. Decrying the rise in novelty bets such as the time of the first throw in, the article claimed the ‘mug punters’ being taken for a ride by sharp bettors, who have an ‘in’ with players or coaches, would not be able to lose their money if these markets were not on offer.

The article argued that the ‘polluter pays’ principle should be applied to the betting sector. If Betfair’s managing director Mark Davies “was caught spray-painting the walls of the British Horseracing Authority’s headquarters, would he refuse to help pay for the clean-up?” it asked.

Davies responded vigorously a few days later, saying SROC was unable to stand up to its claim to a cut on the use of a stadium or player’s name. Indeed, how can you lay claim to information that is public?

On the issue of sporting integrity, he said the fact that sports were only just waking up to having an in-built integrity-management role did not mean the betting operators “should have to pay for it just because they point it out”.

The issue of sporting integrity and how the bookmaking industry in the UK and Europe is subsequently portrayed by vested parties and the mainstream press has been highlighted before by eGaming Review.

We ran a cover story in January this year where we spoke with SROC and explained the moves by EU politicians to portray the industry as a cross between the worst evil in the world and the most avaricious of man’s creations.

The Month End comment in our September issue also emphasised the way issues such as a betting right, which is basically a claim to more revenues from SROC and its members, and sporting integrity get rolled into one and the same, when they are in fact distinct from one another.

The egaming industry, to be fair, has taken a proactive role in highlighting its efforts to ensure safe and secure betting. The issue is probably even more important in regulating markets in Europe, where monopoly-influenced politicians are only too happy to peddle the propaganda they are fed by the state-licensed operators. (Some of the European Court of Justice’s statements in its ruling of the Bwin-Santa Casa de Misericordia case being a case in point).

Overall though, the recent UK press coverage of the betting sector is a sharp reminder to the online gaming sector of how vigilant it must remain to promote the positives it brings to the table and just as importantly, make sure consumers understand how it works.

This article first appeared in the October issue of eGaming Review.

Don’t miss out on egaming news: sign up for our free Snapshot email.