Is iGaming the New Battleground for Lobbyists?

Posted by Harry Kane on Friday, March 22, 2019

When the government department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) began to investigate the concept of FOBTs towards the end of 2017, they were urged by responsible gambling campaigners to be bold in their response to the challenge of high stakes wagering.

This sustained pressure undoubtedly influenced the department’s final decision, which saw the maximum single stake for FOBTs slashed from £100 to a paltry £2. These same campaigners are now said to be turning their attention to the lucrative iGaming market, as they seek legislative changes that afford greater protections to players.

In response, the Remote Gambling Association (RGA) and the Association of British Bookmakers (AAB) are poised to merge and create a true lobbying superpower in the UK. This will earmark the iGaming space as the new battleground for lobbyists in the future, and one that may well shape the British gambling industry going forward.

Setting the Scene – Why Internet Gambling Is Being Targeted by Campaigners?

The Campaign for Fairer Gambling retains an influential lobbying presence in the UK marketplace, with the organisation widely considered to be the driving force between the impending FOBT cap.

With this objective having now been achieved, the group has turned its attention to the iGaming space and is pushing to explore legislative changes online. Its reasoning for this is simple; as it argues that existing laws came into a force at a time when Internet gambling was in its infancy, making them unfit for purpose in an age of smartphones, mobile apps and tablet devices.

This makes for a compelling argument, while it also borrows heavily from the principle that the first step towards solving a problem is acknowledging that it exists. The suggestion here is that regulators and lawmakers have failed to recognise the impact that technological and economic changes have had throughout the gambling industry, rendering them unable to tackle any new challenges that arise with revised legislation.

The initial response to the FOBT controversy provided a relevant case in point, as while potentially vulnerable gamblers were able to wager as much as £300 during each 60-second period on these machines, the aforementioned ABA seemed reluctant to accept the problem and deal with it accordingly.

In the iGaming space, there’s no doubt that the bulk of the existing legislation was passed prior to the online gambling boom of the last decade, despite a number of revisions that have taken place since 2010.

As a result, it can be argued that this body of law does not adequately account for the exponential growth in mobile gambling or the challenges posed by incredible levels of online advertising and the lack of age formal verification through social gaming channels.

These factors, along with the success of the Campaign for Fairer Gambling in lobbying against the maximum FOBT betting threshold, have compelled the group to target the iGaming space and call for action from lawmakers.

Learning Lessons – The Proposed Merger of the RGA and the ABB

While addressing the challenges posed by iGaming may represent a logical move for responsible gambling campaigners, it’s important to note that there’s an entirely different culture emerging in the online gambling market.

After all, while the ABB singularly failed to recognise the dangers of FOBTs and the impact that high stakes betting was having on vulnerable gamblers, the RGA has (in conjunction with the UKGC) already taken significant steps towards safeguarding players and altering the perception of the market as a whole.

One of the best examples of this was provided by the recent decision of prominent RGA members (including Bet365 and Ladbrokes) to agree a voluntary “whistle-to-whistle” television advertising ban during live sporting broadcasts.

Although this move also came following significant lobbying and political pressure, operators clearly recognised the issue at hand and decided to take proactive steps towards resolving it. By mutually agreeing to a blanket advertising ban, they immediately provided a concession in the eyes of lobbyists while proposing a managed solution to the so-called ‘normalising’ of sports betting during pre-watershed hours.

This type of proactive approach suggests that the RGA is far more willing to consider legislative and regulatory changes that actively safeguard players, which makes the organisation well-placed to react to lobbyists and minimise the damaged caused by future proposals.

Interestingly, it also appears as though the RGA and the ABB have learned lessons directly as a result of the recent FOBT fall-out.

More specifically, these two groups have proposed a merger, in order to create a stronger ally for gambling operators and a more uniform approach to regulating the gambling industry as a whole.

So, not only would the new organisation represent the interests of operators in a far more effective way, but it would also serve as a lobbying superpower that would hold considerable sway in Parliament.

During the FOBT investigation, for example, the separate entities of the RGA and the ABB failed to collaborate and form an effective opposition to the proposals. This was despite the fact that the government were openly being pressured into slashing the betting cap to £2, which was widely accepted would cut profits by more than 50% and trigger the closure of up to 9,000 bookmakers nationwide.

Now, while it’s unlikely that this merger would have prevented the FOBT cap from being introduced (or have the power to prevent new regulatory measures being introduced in the future), there’s no doubt that it would have boasted a stronger lobbying presence and presented a viable compromise to the government.

After all, the UKGC suggested that the betting cap should be fixed at £30, which would have helped to satisfy the concerns of fairer gambling groups while also minimising store closures and managing the impact on individual bookmakers.

Ultimately, by aligning their interests and establishing a stronger and more consistent lobbying presence, a merger between the RGA and the ABB will help to safeguard the interests of both operators and players more effectively in the future.

iGaming as the New Battleground for Lobbyists

Many will argue that this type of merger is long overdue, but the question that remains is how will it impact on the iGaming sector going forward?

The first school of thought is that the new organisation will go toe-to-toe with fairer gambling lobbyists in Westminster, with iGaming considered to be the jewel in the industry’s crown and clearly the new battleground for supremacy.

This would see the newly formed gambling body adopt a more tenacious approach to representing the interests of operators and the industry as a whole, as it would look to apply pressure to the government and reinforce the invaluable tax contributions made by on and offline betting brands alike.

Remember, the government has moved to offset some of the revenue losses that will be incurred through the FOBT cap by increasing the remote gaming duty to 21%, and it’s not inconceivable that the gambling body would use this as leverage when discussing proposed regulatory or legislative changes.

The issue with this perception is that it arguably misrepresents the majority of iGaming brands, many of which are collaborating with groups like to UKGC to provide better safeguards for players and uphold the regulators’ core strategic objectives through 2021.

In fact, it’s clear that the market-leading members of the RGA want to establish themselves as genuine ambassadors for responsible gambling in the UK, and this ambition does sit well with the idea of overly-aggressive and self-interested lobbying power.

This makes the second school of thought far more insightful, as this would see the newly merged gambling body represent its members and gamblers simultaneously. It would do this by presenting a concise and consistent set of values while using these to proactively address the concerns of responsible gambling groups and government bodies.

In practical terms, this would allow the new group to address the major challenges facing the iGaming space head-on, as they look to meet campaigners halfway and create the opportunity for self-regulation. Almost immediately, this creates a scenario where operators can appease their most vocal critics and safeguard the interests of players, all while working collaboratively with regulators and lawmakers.

At the same time, this type of forward-thinking approach enables operators to manage their response and control any subsequent fall-out, as they strive to minimise the damage caused to their profit margins and ability to employ people on a large scale.

As we’ve already said, this type of alignment and unified approach would have minimised the impact of the FOBT cap, by presenting a viable compromise at £30. This move would have almost certainly prevented the government from introducing the £2 threshold, which is set to have a devastating impact on the offline gambling sector.

Lessons have clearly been learned by operators and gambling bodies, however, and there’s every chance that the drive for new iGaming legislation could meet with an entirely different and more reasoned approach from those within the industry.