He who is resistant to change is not always destined to fail

Share this article

The first states have begun legalising sports betting after an historic Supreme Court ruling and naturally existing gaming operators are being given the first swings at the new vertical. Whilst opposition to the practice is unlikely to be quelled any time soon the fact that the sports betting and other affiliated online games are to be conducted and regulated by land based casino operators should breed confidence.

Commercial and tribal casino operators have proven to be not only cornerstones of regional markets but also part of the socio-economic fabric through decades of good work and community support. There is then seemingly no one better suited to the operation of safe betting practices, especially when wagering can be confined to the physical walls of premises, allowing for closer customer care and ultimately protection.

The argument that swathes of the population will be led to ill through the practice is patently unfounded and further rebuked by the continued presence of positive practices in New Jersey and Nevada.

Ever forward thinking the casino industry is right to assess the possible benefits of wagering implementation at premises especially in regions where any failure to do so could see gam- ing dollars go to neighbouring states. The fear of becoming the next fiscal luddite must be a strong one.

The United States however is a difficult to assess as a single market largely down to the power of state legislature and the regional disparity this brings to varying gaming markets.

A clear example of this is the differing attitudes in the neighbouring states of Nevada and California. Those in the historic seat of US gambling have had sports betting for some time, much to the benefit of casino coffers, however some tribal operators in California for one are less than enthused about the possible introduction of the form.

An introduction of practice would entail its rollout across the state’s cardrooms as well as its casinos, with the former having a distinct advantage due to population centre proximity. Such then becomes an issue of plain economics. There is little to no reason for a resort-style property to allow for sports wagering in order to boost revenues by single unit percentage points when it simultaneously hands direct competitors a clear advantage.

Due to this tribal authorities are unlikely to back legislature promoting this form of gaming expansion unless the type of exclusivity expressed in gaming compacts is extended to sports wagering.

Such market idiosyncrasies are not exclusive to the west coast. Over in New York the state failed to get provisions for implementation through its last legislative session, in Pennsylvania operators are being deterred by high taxes and a reportedly-illegal lottery offering whilst New Jersey seems to be diving head first into the new market.

As with the legalisation of all newformsofgaming,therollout of sports betting will be largely, if not exclusively dictated by the wills of land based casino operators in the US. It may seem peculiar that some markets may rally against adding a string to their bow but more often than not there is a great deal of method in apparent madness.

Share this article