Courtrooms, boardrooms, free speech and football

The SBC Media team publishes more than 250 articles a week across its network of news websites, but predicting which will attract the most interest is far from an exact science, as this round-up of our most-read stories of the first half of 2023 shows.

Words by MARTYN ELLIOTT

COURTING (UNWANTED) PUBLICITY

There have been some eye-wateringly expensive regulatory cases involving major European operators this year, but bet365 has stayed out of that particular spotlight. However, two unusual legal cases involving the betting behemoth caught the eye of SBC’s readers.

The first of them saw Essex fraudster Jon Howard jailed for five years for his role in an industrial-scale bonus abuse syndicate that swindled bet365 out of an estimated £236,000.

The second saw a Danish court order the bookmaker to pay DKK 4.7million in compensation to a group of 23 athletes, including Manchester United’s Christian Eriksen and Olympic badminton champion Viktor Axelsen, for unauthorised use of their names and photos on social media.

bet365 argued that the posts were editorial in nature so covered by fair usage, but the court ruled that such social media activity constituted marketing activity meaning use of the names and images required consent.

Perhaps something for all social media managers to think about.

IT’S WHAT MADISON WOULD HAVE WANTED

Barstool Sportsbook’s habit of acquiring headlines at a quicker rate than market share continued when online sports betting went live in Massachusetts, where the bros’ ‘Can’t Lose Parlay’ offer prompted some - frankly ridiculous, but highly entertaining - debate at a state Gaming Commission hearing.

While Commissioners argued that the offer violated regulations because the ‘Can’t Lose’ section of the name was misleading, Barstool’s counsel insisted the moniker was very obviously tongue-in-cheek and that any reasonable person would understand that a wager could in fact be lost.

As SBC Americas reported, the sportsbook’s lawyer also, remarkably, pulled out the biggest gun in the legal armoury and claimed that the promotion could not violate gaming regulations because it was constitutionally protected as free speech.

Maybe not exactly what the First Amendment was intended for.

MALTESE CROSS WITH FOREIGN REGULATORS?

It’s rare that proceedings in the Maltese Parliament make international headlines, but the passage of Bill 55 into law was an exception.

The provisions of the ‘Gaming Amendment Bill’ allow Maltese courts to ignore the judgements of overseas regulators if they conflict with or undermine the provision of gaming services in Malta, or if enforcement measures relate to an activity lawful under the island’s Gambling Act.

As SBC News readers learned, the measure has proved highly controversial.

Some observers believe it was a direct - almost protectionist - response to action taken against Malta-licensed companies by authorities in Austria and Germany, who had accused those businesses of operating illegally in their jurisdictions.

Soap Opera Shenanigans

M&A is a firm favourite of readers of all the SBC websites, and stories about Entain’s push to buy, well, everything and Gary Green’s interest in IGT’s slot machine business proved popular. But leading the way in terms of interest was the soap opera surrounding PointsBet’s disposal of its US business.

Playing the Bobby Ewing role was cleancut newcomer Fanatics Betting and Gaming, headed by former FanDuel CEO Matt King, who believed they had a deal in place to snap up PointsBet and secure access to multiple states. They’d reckoned without the presence of a scheming J.R. in the form of DraftKings, which threw a spanner in the works with a mischievous late, higher but nonbinding bid.

But with the help of huge amounts of cash generated by the sale of cheap replica sportswear, Fanatics was subsequently able to top that bid and clinch the deal, which the PointsBet board announced accompanied by some thinly-veiled criticism of DraftKings’ conduct.

Fortunately all this was achieved without a Kristin Shepard character edging their way into the narrative.

When is a ban an actual ban and when is it an exercise in kicking the can down the road? The decision of Premier League football clubs to outlaw front-of-shirt sponsorships by gambling operators, but not until 2026, didn’t help to answer that question.

Inevitably, clubs including Burnley and Fulham moved to take cash from betting brands while it was still available, while Chelsea flirted with Stake.com until a backlash from supporters’ groups prompted a U-turn. The deal that caused the most fury was BK8’s sponsorship of Aston Villa’s shirt, which SBC News and Insider Sport readers saw described variously as “tone deaf”, “faricial”, “misleading” and evidence of “commercial reality”.

No bonus points for guessing which description came from Villa’s chief executive.