There is a great article today in the Economist about the dangers of corruption caused by sports betting. The gist of the article is that by paying players more, you lower the risk of corruption. It focuses on the reasons that American sports have been less vulnerable to corruption despite the high volume of sports wagering that occurs in this country.

From the article:

THE lengthening shadow cast by illegal betting syndicates over international sport has one curious exception: America. That is surprising, given that Americans are ardent betters on sport and, as with soccer and cricket, sportsmen there are often youths from lowly backgrounds.
…
So how and why is America different? One reason may be that foreign gambling syndicates are less interested in baseball and American football (scandals are rife in tennis). Another is that gambling-influenced corruption in sport has made Americans aware of its dangers.
…
American sports’ governing bodies tend to regard all gambling with disapproval. David Stern, who heads the National Basketball Association, says cautiously that legal betting on his sport “may be a huge opportunity”. He is an exception. Most other sporting big shots are less enthusiastic. The National Football League would rather not have any gambling at all, says Brian McCarthy, a spokesman. When Delaware tried amending its laws to allow sports betting, the NFL was strongly opposed. The league makes a strong anti-gambling pitch to new players, as does the National Collegiate Athletic Association, another oversight body. Violations are now rare. The NFL suspended two players for placing bets on games in 1963 and one for similar reasons in the 1980s.

Meanwhile, corruption continues to be a way of life in countries like Pakistan.

The EU Parliament just issued a draft report on ‘the integrity of online gambling’ which will be used to shape future policy decisions on the issue of online gambling and free trade. Things do not look good for the freedom of EU citizens to wager online. The report basically rehashes a bunch of tired old arguments that could be used against any number of online activities and comes to the conclusion that it likely would not be against the EU’s free trade agreements for a member country to prevent it’s citizens from being allowed to gamble online.

They begin by pointing out what a legal mess the issue of online gambling has become:

The issue of regulating EU gambling markets, whether conventional or online, is very sensitive. But there is a clear need for clarification about the regulatory environment concerning online gambling. At present, almost 50 % of the cases pending at the European Court of Justice right now are related to gambling.

They then go on to make the genius argument that online gambling is fundamentally different than casino gambling because in a casino, someone can make the determination that you are too drunk to gamble:

It is difficult for online gambling operators to supervise their customers as opposed to conventional gambling where it is possible to see whether the customer is under age, is drunk or in other ways intoxicated or behaving suspiciously. Also since access to online gambling services is easy and can be done in isolation, social checks and constraints that can be exercised by the presence of others are lacking.

Obviously these guys have never been to Vegas. If this statement doesn’t epitomize the “nanny state” mentality that has been leading to the rapid erosion of our precious freedoms, I don’t know what does. Meanwhile in Australia, the politicians are trying to filter the internet for the entire country to block citizens from accessing online gambling sites. Let’s hope that they are not successful.

Download the full EU report here.

It’s been a busy summer and unfortunately I haven’t had much time to post. To keep the pulse going, here is a quick roundup of the most interesting sports betting news of the day:

• Why you can’t bet on the Olympics (in Las Vegas at least)
• Beware mysterious shifts in the point spread – University of Toledo basketball player charged with repeated point shaving.
• Brett Favre deal causes sportsbook shakeup.

Football season is around the corner as you can see from the news – get your sportsbook accounts ready!

Cindy Skrycki outlined some of the inherent problems that have arisen from trying to enforce these laws a recent column for washingtonpost.com. The 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act was aimed at stemming the tide of internet gambling revenue by forcing US banks to disallow the flow of funds into offshore gambling. However, as the law comes out of it’s infancy, banks are finding it increasingly difficult to enact.

The first problem they encounter is the logistical nightmare of trying to separate legitimate transactions from money that is intended solely for gambling purposes. It also becomes a major issue for them to stay within the regulatory compliance mandates of the law as well. The more they pry into each transaction to try and comply with the law, the more difficult, and expensive, it becomes to operate.

The other issue that financial institutions are facing is that even federal agency disagree as to what the law entails. While the law does specify that they must stop the transfer of funds for gambling, it does not specify what exactly constitutes gambling. Thus banks are left to do the guesswork. As time passes there is a growing sentiment that these laws will not work and are, in their current form, unenforceable.

This bodes quite well for the future of internet gambling. If the attempts of the US to stop internet gambling are by all accounts futile, it seems that offshore gambling is here to stay.

Check out the article for more details and stay tuned for further updates from ibet.pro