Right2Bet anti-monopoly campaign releases results of its survey
A study commissioned by the Right2Bet anti-state gambling monopolies campaign has illustrated with shocking clarity that online gamblers were ill-served by such operators during the recent football World Cup.
The numbers show that throughout football’s most spectacular showcase European state betting monopolies offered their customers, on average, 32 percent worse odds than those available with private betting companies.
Monopoly customers wishing to back their home nations in South Africa were subjected to 35 percent worse odds than those being offered by the EU-licensed private sector operators that their governments do not allow them to use, claims Right2Bet in a statement this week.
The Right2bet World Cup Report analysed the odds offered on every World Cup match by seven of Europe’s biggest state betting monopolies, before comparing them to the equivalent prices being offered by other licensed European operators.
The aim of the report was to investigate whether or not Europe’s betting monopolies were short-changing their customers via the help of legalization which protects their existence and market dominance.
Right2bet is campaigning for the right of all European consumers to be able to bet with the licensed operator of their choice, regardless of the Member State in which they are based.
Right2bet spokesman Ari Last said: “The figures emanating from this report are quite shocking. Millions of EU consumers who wanted to bet during the World Cup were subjected to hugely inferior prices by the monopolies that their governments strive so hard to protect.”
“The protectionist behaviour of certain EU member states when it comes to online gambling is a situation that does not conform to the ethos of the single-market, and we hope that the findings of this report will highlight what is undoubtedly an unjust reality.”
Key points from the study show:
* Monopolies offered their customers 32 percent worse odds than licensed private operators
* The ‘Perfect Bettor’ forced to bet with a monopoly would have made Euro 629 less than they would have done if they were allowed to bet with other EU-licensed operators in the private sector
* On average, a monopoly customer choosing to back the ‘favourite’ throughout every one of the 64 tournament matches would have received 38 percent less value, while one who chose to back the ‘outsider’ throughout each game of the tournament would have received 35 percent less value
* Monopolies offered customers wishing to back their home nation 35 percent worse odds than private operators
* It is clear from the results published in this report that consumers using online gambling services in the EU are receiving significantly lower value when forced to use a state monopoly provider
* Germany: 48 percent worse off
* Sweden: 40 percent worse off
* The Netherlands: 35 percent worse off
* France: 31.5 percent worse off
* Greece: 31 percent worse off
* Denmark: 14.4 percent worse off