European Gaming & Betting Association

No. EGBA operators have a zero tolerance approach to  money laundering. This is evidenced by the strict regulatory requirements which are complemented by binding self developed standards. These are allegations that are not based on facts and are used to avoid constructive debate. All EGBA members are licensed and regulated in the EU, and apply the requirements of the 3rd anti-money laundering directive under their licensing regime.

See Directive  

No. Independent studies and surveys show that in a regulated sector the risks and amounts associated with online gaming are modest in comparison to other sectors. This is due to the high traceability and transparency of online gaming transactions, as well as the customer identification controls that make money laundering unattractive.

See 2007 report by the German Financial Investigation Unit

See 2008  study by Europe Economics for the European Parliament

See 2009 study by Professor Levi, Professor of Criminology at Cardiff University   

No. In a regulated online environment, internet transactions are traceable and transparent. There are no cash transactions involved. All deposits and withdrawals are made via highly regulated financial institutions such as banks or credit card companies. In an offline environment, the same scenario is almost impossible to reconstruct.

Corruption in sport is a much broader issue of concern as recent non betting scandals (Formula one, Rugby) have proved. The Hoyzer affair (see Hoyzer story below) has also shown that land-based state monopolies are not unaffected. In fact, properly regulated, the online betting industry provides a unique tool to identify suspicious bets at an early stage,  alerts the relevant sports authorities and cancels the bets (see ESSA link below). The fight against sports corruption will be efficient only if all stakeholders take responsibility to prevent  risks.

See ESSA
See Hoyzer story

Several recent studies by governments and universities - such as research by the highly regarded Division on Addictions, Cambridge Health Alliance, a Harvard Medical School teaching affiliate (see Harvad study link below)- have not produced any evidence to support this allegation. On the contrary, comparisons between a regulated and competitive market (UK – see link below) and a monopoly system (Norway – see link below; Sweden – see link below) show the figures have remained stable over the last decade (around 1 percent problem gamers) despite the development of online gaming. 

EGBA’s members are not complacent, however, and have adopted a responsible approach  to gaming (see link below to EGBA Standards) in order to protect vulnerable customers and to help ensure that games of chance remain pure entertainment.  

Harvard study

UK

Norway

Sweden

EGBA Standards

On the contrary, EGBA operators have no interest in creating problems for their customers. If anything it is bad for business. EGBA members have developed state of the art tools and taken many steps to prevent customers from developing a gaming problem.  Through self-regulation, online tools and by working closely with responsible gaming organisations ( such as Responsibility in Gaming Trust... see links below), EGBA members actively promote responsible gaming to protect vulnerable customers (see link below -principle 1 and 2 of EGBA Standards).  Customers have access to a number of these tools, such as time, deposit limits, cool off periods and self-exclusion options. The vast majority of customers view gaming as a form of entertainment and keep within their financial means.

UK- Responsibility in Gaming Trust GamCare
France- Adictel SOS Joueurs
Sweden- Stödlinjen
EGBA Standards

History has shown that prohibition has never been a solution and has never served to protect the consumer, whether it is gaming or other sectors.

The interests of consumers are best served through regulation- and information and codes of conduct that are complementary to regulation. This ensures that consumers are offered a high level of protection and have access to responsible and regulated sites at the same time. Prohibition, on the other hand, risks driving gaming ‘underground’ and places players at the mercy of unscrupulous operators.

Online gaming and betting, like any other e-commerce sector, is cross-border by nature, so the most efficient way to regulate the industry is at EU level.  

On regulating online gaming only at national level would lead to a ridiculous situation of 27 national mini internet markets within the EU. Such a situation would go against the very nature of the internet and contradict the basic principles and ideas behind the European Single Market. Online gaming is an e-service where both businesses and consumers would benefit from more cross-border cooperation and common EU standards.

Members of the EGBA are all located, licensed and pay taxes within the EU. EGBA member companies make a valuable economic contribution in the EU Member States where they are licensed, including: investment in local economic activity, employment taxes, social contributions, corporate taxes as well as gaming and betting taxes and levies.

No. A 2008 benchmarking study revealed that 67 percent of the responsible gaming standards implemented by EGBA members matched or exceeded those applied by ten of Europe’s largest monopolies. The study, carried out by eCOGRA (see link below), was the first ever fact-based and comparative assessment.  This clearly shows that it is the private sector that is leading in the important field of responsible gaming practices (see link below to EGBA study).

see link for eCOGRA study
see link to EGBA study

Underage gambling is strictly prohibited. The online environment provides age verification opportunities that are not available in the offline environment (see below study of Belgian consumer organisation CRIOC). All online customers must provide information including their name and age on registration. This information is then verified using third party verification services.

Protecting minors is a challenge for all stakeholders (parents, public authorities and of course operators). All EGBA members strictly enforce measures aimed at preventing any form of underage gaming. This includes:

-Prominently displaying a ‘no under 18’ sign
-Ensuring that advertising is not targeted towards underage individuals
-Providing a link to a recognised filtering programme to enable parents to prevent minors from accessing our websites.

See CRIOC study  

On the contrary, many offline operators do not impose limits. Absolute limits do not provide for an adapted answer to problem gaming. Players should be able to access tools (i.e. setting their own limits, cooling-off or self exclusion) to help them control their gaming behaviour. Imposing fixed limits tend to drive players away to unregulated and unscrupulous websites.  

Current research (Study Division on Addictions, Cambridge Health Alliance, a Harvard Medical School teaching affiliate) shows that in contrast to self-limitation, which has proven to be an effective responsible gaming tool, fixed deposit limits have low or no impact on problem gaming behaviour. Research shows that the vast majority of players maintain self-control and enjoy playing and betting online for fun and entertainment. 

See study

Quite the opposite, the average pay-out ratio (percentage of stakes paid back to players) on a state-owned site is significantly lower than that of the competitive private sector. In France, ratios for state operators FDJ and PMU currently stand at 75 and 78 percent respectively, while it stands at around 93 percent for online private operators. Payback ratios are clearly a competitive differentiator and important for new market entrants to ensure they can offer more attractive games to customers.

There is not a single study that provides evidence to support this claim. It is, on the contrary, a key competitive factor. There is no known impact of the payback ratio on problem gaming. It is only a claim to keep protectionist national policies and to erase the competitive arguments of new entrants and force them to lower their ratio to those applied by historic operators.

A regulated opening of the market to competition and the online private sector is no threat to sports funding. A study carried out by Sports Business in 2008 (see study below) compared the two opposite sports funding models of the UK and France. It concluded that a competitive and regulated betting market like that of the UK proved to be beneficial to sports funding. The study concluded that under a competitive and regulated market, sports benefit from a more diverse and broader funding model and that grass-roots sport funding was not reduced.

Sports Business Study

The sponsoring of clubs by online operators represents a marketing opportunity for operators to gain visibility and promote their brand. Any attempt by the sponsor to influence the outcome of a result would damage the reputation of the sponsor. Preventing conflict of interest cannot be seen through the prism of sponsorship. Unfortunately, the perpetrators of any game manipulation/match fixing are usually people connected to the game, e.g. players, coaches, officials etc. The challenge is therefore to have clear rules that prevent players, coaches, officials from betting on their own competitions (which operators already have in place). 

Online private gaming is a fast developing sector in Europe, but is relatively small in comparative terms with the market share of traditional land-based operators (7 percent versus 93 percent in 2008). Economic forecasts expect online gaming’s market share to rise to 12 percent in 2012. The offline market is expected to rise from €78.5 billion in 2008 to €82 billion in 2012, meaning that its share of the total market will still be a very large 88 percent.

This is due to the fact that:

- Revenues generated by traditional land-based operators stem from long-established products, such as those found in physical betting shops, casinos and bingo halls, and also from non-sports related offerings like scratch cards and lottery tickets. 

- There is a very low substitution level between the online and traditional land-based sector.

As with prohibition, blocking payments to websites is not the democratic way forward.  The European Commission does not view such blockings favourably and has already opposed measures tabled by the Germans and by the French. The legality of such market restrictions depends on the full compliance with EU law of the full online gaming legislative package. It also can raise problems of compliance with national laws.

Beyond the legality of such measure, there is also a practical element. It can be difficult to identify that a merchant is a gaming site. It is costly for banks as it entails manual intervention and extra processing tools/methods. It is inefficient and easy to circumvent: use of e-wallets and prepaid cards instead of mainstream payment means, merchant codes can be altered by non-scrupulous websites. Finally, it drives players to less scrupulous websites and jurisdictions.