A new report from the International Betting Integrity Association (IBIA) and H2 Gambling Capital has ranked New Jersey and Nevada among the strongest regulated online betting markets on the globe, but Canada 19th of the 20 countries measured.
The “first-of-its-kind” report – which can be read in full here – launched today and assesses and ranks 20 different regulatory markets on regulation, tax, product availability, integrity and marketing. The report also provides an overview of the global betting market and reveals the annual cost of match-fixing.
It rated Canada second-lowest among the 20 markets measured. However, it was one of five markets granted a provisional score, as the country’s regulatory system may undergo major changes.
The country’s Senate is currently considering a bill to allow single-event sports wagering, by repealing a law that currently requires bets to be on three or more events. After passing this bill at second reading, the Senate assigned the bill to a standing committee.
In terms of regulation, the report noted that it is one of the few jurisdictions that still has a sports betting monopoly, though this is conducted at the provincial level. This, however, is another area that may change, as Ontario plans to begin a licensing process.
With ratings still based on current rules, though, the country scored only 47 points out of a possible 100.
The combination of these monopolies and the single-event betting ban has led to extremely low channelisation, of just 31%, in the market, which contributed to the low score.
While these restrictions were the main reasons for Canada’s low score, the IBIA also noted that the country has no current match-fixing laws and had not signed onto an international convention against sports manipulation.
Advertising also led to a low score, as advertising of online gambling is prohibited in Canada.
While Canada received a low score, both New Jersey and Nevada were ranked in the top six.
Nevada was the highest-ranked of North American markets.
Though the state links online betting to land-based licensees, its regulation score was still very high. A long-standing regulatory framework compared to the rest of the US, due to exemptions from PASPA, and an 89% channelisation rate, helped this regulation score.
The IBIA added that the state has a “particularly attractive 6.75% GGR and overall tax regime,” despite the US’s 0.25% handle tax and taxes on betting winnings. As a result, Nevada saw the joint-highest tax score.
In product, Nevada does have restrictions on non-college amatuer sports and on political betting, but the report noted that its product offering was very wide among US markets.
In integrity, Nevada is not connected to the Macolin Convention due to this being a European integrity convention. However, the state does have a suspicious betting reporting process and clear federal and state punishments for bribery and cheating offences.
In advertising, regulations state marketing “must be conducted with decency” and may not be targeted at self-excluded players. The lack of detail in this first provision contributed to a more middling advertising score.
New Jersey falls just behind Nevada among US markets. Though not as longstanding as Nevada, the state’s regulatory system was praised. However, the report noted that the state “relatively recently introduced arrangements that limit the number of online betting licences and require online companies to establish agreements with incumbent licensed land-based operators,” with three online skins per operator.
The state’s channelisation rate was lower than Nevada, at 82%.
In tax, online betting carries a higher tax rate than land-based, at 14.25% to 9.25%, though the report said the online tax was still “competitive” and very close to the long-established 15% rate in Great Britain. However, the state was praised for rejecting the idea of an integrity fee for sports betting, which IBIA said was a repackaging of a betting levy.
In product, New jersey did not score as highly, largely due to restrictions on betting games involving in-state college sports teams. However, this may be removed by a referendum in November after the State Assembly passed a bill to introduce a constitutional amendment to repeal the requirement.
New Jersey requires operators to be part of a betting monitoring system, which helps its integrity score.
In advertising, meanwhile, like Nevada, New Jersey’s lack of detail in marketing rules was criticised, though it has no major marketing restrictions.