EU Commission demands end to state sports betting monopoly

12.04.2007

By Marie V. Thesbjerg
Last round in the wheel of fortune for Denmark, Finland and Hungary has been set off by The European Commission. In the spinning business of betting the EU Commission has issued Reasoned Opinions against the three EU member states to consider their gambling monopolies and make sure they are not contradicted by EU law.

Denmark, Finland and Hungary have not been able to document that the restrictions in the free supply of betting services are “necessary, proportionate and non-discriminatory,” a press release from the Commission said. Therefore the EU Commission has stated reasoned opinions against them.

The three countries cannot claim to be protecting consumers from gambling, if they also encourage them to play state lotteries that pay proceeds to their governments. The Commission investigated whether the restrictions are compatible with the guaranteeing of free movement of services in EU. If the three countries do not comply with the EU warning, they will face EU court.

The warnings from EU came after a number of betting companies filed complaints with the EU commission.

"The Commission has received a number of complaints from operators in the area of sports betting, and it feels obliged to respond. I don’t underestimate the sensitivities that exist in many member states on the question of gambling. In sending these letters of formal notice, we are not seeking to liberalise the market in any way," said Internal Market and Services Commissioner Charlie McCreevy to Euactiv.

One of the strongest arguments in favour of keeping national gambling monopolies is the fact that the revenue from gambling go to society. The state monopoly in European countries is upheld for the state to channel money from gambling, lotteries and betting into support of sports and cultural organisations.

This is not recognised as a legal argument by the European Court of Justice. The EU commission does not regard the domestic gambling monopolies as charitable organizations as they often use commercial sales venues and have strict goals of revenue. 

Difficult to keep the monopoly
Of the 30 countries in the European Economic Area (EEA), around 50% of the countries have a monopoly license on sports betting, while 50 % of the EEA countries have free licenses or a number of licenses offered, according to Jean Jørgensen, a consultant to the Finish and Norwegian government in Brussels.

“It will be difficult to keep the monopoly on the sports betting games in future. Some fear that it might spread to other games as lotto as well, but my judgement is that a lot of countries think games and betting constitute a legitimate machine to support good purposes, and they don’t want to destroy that,” Jørgensen said to Play the Game.

The European Commission put Italy, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland on notice in April 2006 for allowing state lotteries to offer online sports betting, while barring rivals from the business.

The reason Holland, Germany and Sweden was not included in the reasoned opinion was technical according to the Commission.

“The cases were not dropped, they will come later. Unless the governments agree to take steps to change their legislation - either by liberalizing sports betting or cut down on national operator's activities putting more strings on the monopoly operator by less marketing, fewer outlets, etc. In other words they have to show they mean it seriously, when they say their gambling legislation is meant to curb gaming opportunities to protect consumers,” Jørgensen said.

Sweden has averted further legal threats from EU, as the country is to change its gambling law before August, the Swedish Secretary of State, Per Jansson, said to the news agency TT.

This came as a surprise as the Swedish state gambling monopoly is regarded as one of the strongest monopolies.

According to commission spokesman Oliver Drewes, both Germany and the Netherlands have invoked changes in their gambling markets, which mean the commission must extend its investigation. The EU court has stated that betting monopolies can be upheld if their primary task is to limit gambling and control the ways the gambles are offered.

Italian case in between
The EU court has in early March 2007 overruled parts of the Italian gambling legislation in the so-called Placanica case. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that "the Italian criminal penalties for the collecting of bets by intermediaries acting on behalf of foreign companies are contrary to Community law."

The organization European Lotteries sees it as a recognition that national gambling monopolies are in agreement with EU laws. Yet, the betting companies see it as a step toward liberalising the European market.

The case creates uncertainty about the fallout of possible cases of Hungary, Denmark and Finland, if it comes to legal procedure at the EU court. Because of the countries distinct national gambling systems, it seems a matter of interpretation what will be the outcome of a possible EU trial, and uncertain if foreign gambling companies are allowed to market their product in the countries. 

  • Marcos ., 11.12.2009 14:43:
     
    I have had a look at the website mentioned and I think this type of initiatives are great at least to raise awareness about the fact that politicians are not listening to consumers wishes, thus consumers need to raise their voices.

    The information provided can end with some misunderstandings as regards the gambling sector,provide information in relation to the current situation, and there are several tools as the MEP one that allows you email politicians on the subject. I recommend the site to everyone who believes in an open and single EU market in every economic sector, gambling included.
  • Segoviano ., 10.12.2009 14:40:
     
    The European Court of Justice has issued opinions covering the cross border provision of gaming services establishing; for instance, in the Placanica case, that national licensing procedures cannot be applied in a de facto discriminatory manner against foreign gaming operators.
    Also, in the Gambelli case, the ECJ ruled that Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty - covering the freedom to establish a business and the freedom to sell services across borders respectively – applied to gaming services.
    In the Placanica case, the ruling emphasizes that regulation cannot be a smokescreen for discriminatory trade practices and make clear that sneaky attempts by member states to circumvent the free movement of services to protect local favorites will not be tolerated. However, national governments still have considerable latitude to determine how and when to regulate the gaming sector, provided that measures enacted were proportionate to the perceived social ills associated with gambling.
    Though these rulings continue to push the EU for equitable treatment between the member states, as many EU states have local monopolies to protect, the truth is that national governments still try to force their own laws in the gambling sector. Please have a look at http://www.right2bet.net/ and sign a petition in favor of a more integrationist single market.
Comment

* required field

*
*
*
What is three plus seven?
*

Guidelines for posting
Play the Game promotes an open debate on sport and sports politics and we strongly encourage everyone to participate in the discussions on playthegame.org. But please follow these simple guidelines when you write a post:

  1. Please be respectful - even if you disagree strongly with certain viewpoints. Slanderous or profane remarks will not be posted.
  2. Please keep to the subject. Spam or solicitations of any kind will not be posted.

Accept cookies

By continuing to use this site you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our cookie policy unless you have disabled them.