Nonetheless, some private betting operators and jurisdictions dispute the Macolin Convention definition. In the European Union, if a betting operator obtains a license (or agreement) from the betting regulator of one EU member state, this should be enough to demonstrate that the betting operator fulfils the requirements to offer bets in any other EU jurisdiction. Thus, a betting operator with a license in Malta, should be authorized to offer bets in Finland, even if the Finnish regulator has determined that a sports betting monopoly is the best regulatory option for limiting the risks associated with betting.
The same situation occurs in Central America and the Caribbean where some jurisdictions, such as Antigua and Barbuda, fail to recognize that their licensed gambling operators (classified as financial institutions) are not authorized to target US citizens. The US Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) prevents banking establishments from paying into the accounts of online gambling companies located in foreign jurisdictions.
This creates two main positions on sports betting regulation and the question of illegality:
- Jurisdictions that promote betting restrictions as a way to limit certain risks (criminal, addiction, etc.) and to control betting operators with an adapted regulatory system. To be effective, these jurisdictions must deal with illegal retail and online betting. If they wish to limit risks while simultaneously raising money for good causes and creating jobs they must find a balance.
- Jurisdictions that advocate opening the market, as betting is considered an opportunity to create wealth and a way to fight against illegal betting operators, by attracting consumers to the legal market. Some jurisdictions, such as Malta or the UK, have an extensive betting market. Their objective is to engage betting operators through attractive regulatory conditions and lower taxes. These jurisdictions promote their regulatory systems during international gaming events – such as the annual International Casino Exhibition (ICE) trade show held in London – and target betting operators and technical suppliers.
The WLA fully supports the Macolin Convention and reflects its illegal sports betting definition in its Code of Conduct, which says: “No [WLA] member shall offer gaming services via electronic commerce services unless it has received the necessary permission to do so by the government or authorities competent to grant such authorization for the territory where the gaming services are made available.” It further states, “Members shall only offer a gaming service to, or accept bets from, residents of the jurisdiction whose government or competent authority has granted an authorization to offer the gaming services concerned”.
It is also worth noting that licensed lotteries contribute to the fight against money laundering and the manipulation of sports competitions by reporting any illegal platforms to their regulators.
Understanding the illegal betting ecosystem
A multi-stakeholder approach is required to understand and successfully address the illegal sports betting ecosystem in order to preserve the integrity of the legal betting sector.
In the Macolin Convention, Article 13 suggests the development of national platforms, which bring together all relevant stakeholders from public and private sectors, covering prevention, education, policy making, investigation and sanctioning. This includes legal gaming operators, organizations involved in the fight against illegal sports betting and sports competition manipulation, such as Interpol and GLMS, national and international sports organizations, regulators, and law enforcement agencies.
The idea of the national platform is to assist in coordinating all efforts by centralizing and facilitating information collection, analysis and sharing, so that the relevant authorities are informed of possible infringements of laws or sports regulations. Additionally, it would enable improved cooperation at national and international levels.
