iGB Intelligence reports iGB-Market-Monitor-May-2020-proof4 | Page 13

Part 1: The UK – Covid-19 compounds contraction around what protections were being offered to gamblers and when the government’s gambling review would be taking place. This review is likely to be conducted at some point after the crisis has passed. Whenever it occurs, it is sure to be a bruising battle. A more immediate test for the sector will come with the return of elite sports during the summer. Should the major BGC members wish to resume a degree of above-the-line advertising to coincide with the resumption, this is sure to attract further criticism. Far from putting the issue of gambling advertising during the crisis to bed, the likelihood is the issue will flare up again. Indeed, when it comes to the various league and team sponsorships, as well as the pitch-side hoarding ads, it is fair to suggest that the sector will be hard-pressed to avoid being heavily associated with the resumption of sports, for good or ill. This will leave UK operators exposed at a sensitive time. How they manage to negotiate this moment will have a large impact on what happens when the government gets around to its review. Commission under fire While the GRH APPG is very much gunning for the industry, parliamentarians also have the Gambling Commission in their sights with the National Audit Office (NAO) report released in late February being their weapon of choice. The parliamentarians’ view was that the NAO had found the Gambling Commission “not fit for purpose”, which was one interpretation of the criticism. A kinder view would perhaps suggest that the NAO found room for improvement in the Commission’s approach and indeed from an Licensees should be under no illusions that the NAO’s criticism of the Commission raises the threat level. We might hope that the sage advice to encourage and recognise industry progress will strike home; but it seems more likely that the report will lead to a less tolerant approach from the regulator. Dan Waugh, Regulus Partners industry point of view, there are aspects of the NAO findings that it should embrace. Dan Waugh, partner at Regulus Partners, says the report’s findings – namely that the Commission was pursuing woolly objectives, had an unclear process of evaluation, was slow to respond to market changes and displayed gaps in its knowledge – were “not surprising”. Pointing to the irony of some of the NAO’s findings being similarly poorly researched, Waugh suggests it perpetuates the “myth of growth” in UK gambling. But he also suggests that operators should avoid indulging in any schadenfreude over the Commission being on the wrong end of some criticism. “Licensees should be under no illusions that the NAO’s criticism of the Commission raises the threat level,” he adds. “We might hope that the sage advice to encourage and recognise industry progress will strike home; but it seems more likely that the report will lead to a less tolerant approach from the regulator, harder sanctions for licensing failure and further raids on the piggy bank of Gambling plc.” iGB Market Monitor • The UK and Sweden • May 2020 10