worldsportslawreport
FEATURED ARTICLE
09/11
cecile park publishing
Head Office UK Cecile Park Publishing Limited, 17 The Timber Yard, Drysdale Street, London N1 6ND
tel +44 (0)20 7012 1380 fax +44 (0)20 7729 6093 info@e-comlaw.com
www.e-comlaw.com
GAMBLING
UK to expand the sharing of
suspicious betting information
The UK government has launched a
consultation on its proposals to
expand the Gambling Commission’s
powers to share information on
suspicious betting patterns with
international sporting federations.
Andrew Danson, a Senior Associate
with K&L Gates, explains what has
changed.
On 17 August 2011, the UK
government’s Department of
Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)
launched a consultation on its
proposals to amend the Gambling
Act 2005 (the ‘Act’). The
amendments would give the
Gambling Commission broader
powers to share information on
suspicious betting patterns with a
number of international sports
governing bodies, including the
International Olympic Committee
(IOC) and FIFA.
The government’s intention is
that the proposals will be
implemented in time for next
summer’s London 2012 Olympics.
Background
In 2009, the UK Gambling
Commission established a Sports
Betting Integrity Unit (SBIU),
which collects information and
develops intelligence about
potential corruption in sport. The
SBIU has quite limited terms of
reference, which the consultation
does not appear to be seeking to
expand. Its activities are focused on
potentially criminal activity which:
l relates to a sports event in Great
Britain;
l involves parties based within
Great Britain; and
l occurred with a UK-licensed
betting operator.
The information received by the
SBIU comes from UK-licensed
betting operators, who are obliged
under condition 15.1 of their
operating licences to provide the
02
Gambling Commission with any
information they suspect may
relate to criminal activity. That
licence condition also obliges the
betting operator to provide
‘sufficient information to conduct
an effective investigation’ to the
sports governing body (SGB)
concerned - if that SGB is listed in
Part 3 of Schedule 6 of the Act (the
‘Part 3 List’).
The Act expressly permits the
Commission to share information
with the SGBs on the Part 3 List,
subject to the provisions of the
Data Protection Act 1998.
Currently, the Part 3 List consists of
14 SGBs, typically being national
governing bodies such as the
Football Association, the Rugby
Football Union and UK Athletics.
The Act further provides that the
Commission can share
information with other third
parties for the purposes of any
criminal investigation.
According to the consultation
document, it is already possible for
the Commission to share
information with SGBs not on the
Part 3 List, even where that
information is not connected with
a criminal investigation. However,
the consultation document states
that doing so ‘can be challenging’.
For example, the Commission
must consider on a case-by-case
basis whether doing so would
further the licensing objectives
(which include preventing
gambling from being associated
with crime, and ensuring gambling
is conducted in a fair and open
way), and would comply with
applicable laws.
Proposed changes
The main change proposed is to
expand the Part 3 List to include a
number of international SGBs. The
SGBs which the DCMS proposes
to add to the Part 3 List are:
l IOC;
l International Cricket Council
ICC);
l UEFA;
l FIFA ;
l International Tennis Federation
(ITF);
l World Professional Billiards and
Snooker Association (WPBSA);
and
l International Rugby Board.
Justification for the changes
A lot of press attention has focused
on the link between the
consultation and the forthcoming
London 2012 Olympics. Indeed,
the consultation itself refers to
DCMS’s ongoing discussions with
the IOC about strengthening
information sharing in relation to
potential corruption. London 2012
therefore seems to be the trigger
for these proposals. However, the
IOC is only one of the seven SGBs
to be added to the list, so the fact
that London will stage the 2012
Olympics cannot be used as the
sole justification.
The consultation document sets
out three criteria for selecting SGBs
to add to the Part 3 List. Two of
those criteria are the volume of
cases received by the SBIU and the
volume of betting on individual
sports. However, of the seven new
SGBs to be added, only the
WPBSA relates to a sport not
already represented on the List.
The third criterion listed in the
consultation document is ‘the
international equivalents of major
domestic SGBs, not currently
represented on the Schedule’. This
criterion might be said to account
for the other six new SGBs listed in
the consultation and represents a
change of approach for the DCMS.
The main difference between the
existing SGBs on the Part 3 List
and those proposed to be added is
where they are headquartered. All
those on the existing Part 3 List are
based in the UK, whereas five of
the seven proposed to be added are
based outside the UK - the ITF and
world sports law report september 2011
GAMBLING
WPBSA being the exceptions.
At several points in the
consultation document, the DCMS
suggests that the changes are being
made because of ‘the age of the list’.
The SGBs which the DCMS
proposes to add to the list are, we
are told, ‘now relevant’ - the
suggestion being that they were not
relevant before.
That justification is rather
difficult to understand. What, for
example, has changed to make it
appropriate to have UEFA on the
list now if it was not appropriate to
have it on the list in 2005? It is not
as if UEFA Champions League
matches have only recently started
being played in Great Britain.
What is rather more convincing is
the statement in the consultation
document that the government
‘recognise the benefits in attracting
world-class competition in any
given sport and appreciate the
importance of being able to
demonstrate to the relevant SGBs
that we have appropriate
safeguards in place to preserve
sports integrity in relation to
betting in the UK’. That sounds like
an argument which may have been
made by international SGBs,
including the IOC.
Perhaps the question which
should be asked of the government
is not “why add the international
SGBs now?”, but “why were they
omitted in the first place?”.
Data protection
Another oddity is the impression
given that, by expanding the Part 3
List, the Commission’s obligations
under the Data Protection Act
1998 in respect of transferring
personal data to SGBs may be
somehow reduced. No explanation
is given for this.
Section 30 of the Act, which
contains the relevant provisions on
exchange of information, is
expressly subject to section 352.
Section 352 provides that ‘Nothing
world sports law report september 2011
What, for
example, has
changed to
make it
appropriate
to have UEFA
on the list
now if it was
not
appropriate
to have it on
the list in
2005?
in this Act authorises a disclosure
which contravenes the Data
Protection Act 1998’. That will be a
comfort to privacy campaigners
and (from the perspective of the
DCMS and SGBs) an answer to
data protection concerns.
However, it does mean that
adding an international SGB to the
Part 3 List doesn’t automatically
entitle the SBIU to transfer
personal data to that SGB especially if the SGB is based
outside the European Economic
Area. Whilst Switzerland (where
the IOC, FIFA and UEFA are
based) is deemed by the European
Union to have an adequate level of
protection for personal data,
thereby simplifying the issue, that
does not apply to Dubai where the
ICC has its headquarters. That
doesn’t mean the SBIU will not be
able to transfer personal data to the
ICC, only that the process will be
less straightforward.
Impact
Importantly, the consultation states
that there will be no change to the
obligations placed on UK-licensed
operators. Licence condition 15.1
(referred to above) will remain
unchanged, so licensees will be
obliged to pass no more or less
information to the Gambling
Commission than they already do.
As a result, states the consultation,
there will not be any additional
burden on betting operators.
That being the case, the changes
should simply make it easier for
the SBIU to transfer suspicious
betting information to
international SGBs, subject to the
requirements of UK data
protection law.
Whether that will have a material
impact on the international fight
against sports corruption is a
different matter. The SBIU is only
one part of the sports betting
integrity picture - the regulated
betting operators themselves have
often taken the initiative in this
area, as they have as much to lose
from match-fixing as the SGBs do.
For example, individual operators
have put in place memoranda of
understanding with SGBs allowing
for the transfer of suspicious
betting information and European
bookmakers established the
European Sports Security
Association (ESSA) in 2005 to
monitor any irregular betting
patterns or possible insider betting
within sport. ESSA already has
memoranda of understanding with
a number of those international
SGBs which the DCMS intends to
add to the Part 3 List.
Conclusion
The proposals would make it easier
for the SBIU to share information
about suspicious betting patterns
with a wider range of SGBs. In
theory, there should be no impact
on the SBIU’s compliance with
data protection laws. It is hard to
see a downside.
It may well be that the
consultation document fails to
explain adequately why the
international SGBs were not on the
Part 3 List from the outset in 2005.
Perhaps the SBIU will provide little
information to the international
SGBs which is substantially
different from that they already
receive from ESSA.
However, any initiative such as
this which has the potential to
make a positive difference in the
fight against corruption in sport
should be welcomed by both the
sports and regulated betting
industries. If it also makes Great
Britain a more attractive place to
stage top class international
sporting events, so much the
better.
Andrew Danson Senior Associate
K&L Gates LLP, London
andrew.danson@klgates.com
03
cecile park publishing
Head Office UK Cecile Park Publishing Limited, 17 The Timber Yard, Drysdale Street, London N1 6ND
tel +44 (0)20 7012 1380 fax +44 (0)20 7729 6093 info@e-comlaw.com
www.e-comlaw.com
Registered number 2676976 Registered address 141 Wardour Street, London W1F 0UT VAT registration 577806103
e-commerce law & policy
world online gambling law report
Many leading companies, including Amazon, BT, eBay, FSA, Orange, Vodafone,
Standard Life, and Microsoft have subscribed to ECLP to aid them in solving the
business and legal issues they face online.
ECLP, was nominated in 2000 and again in 2004 for the British & Irish Association
of Law Librarian’s Legal Publication of the Year.
A twelve month subscription is £460 (overseas £480) for twelve issues and
includes single user access to our online database.
You can now find in one place analysis of the key legal, financial and regulatory
issues facing all those involved in online gambling and practical advice on how
to address them. The monthly reports update an online archive, which is an
invaluable research tool for all those involved in online gambling.
Poker, payment systems, white labelling, jurisdiction, betting exchanges, regulation, testing, interactive TV and mobile gaming are all subjects that have featured in WOGLR recently.
Leading organisations, including Ladbrokes, William Hill, Coral, Sportingbet,
BskyB, DCMS, PMU, Orange and Clifford Chance are subscribers.
A twelve month subscription is £570 (overseas £590) for twelve issues
and includes single user access to our online database.
e-commerce law reports
You can now find in one place all the key cases, with analysis and comment, that
affect online, mobile and interactive business. ECLR tracks cases and regulatory
adjudications from around the world.
Leading organisations, including Clifford Chance, Herbert Smith, Baker &
McKenzie, Hammonds, Coudert Brothers, Orange and Royal Mail are subscribers.
A twelve month subscription is £460 (overseas £480) for six issues and
includes single user access to our online database.
data protection law & policy
FAX +44 (0)20 7729 6093
CALL +44 (0)20 7012 1380
EMAIL karl.nitzsche@e-comlaw.com
ONLINE www.e-comlaw.com
POST Cecile Park Publishing 17 The Timber Yard, Drysdale Street, London N1 6ND
priority order form
You can now find in one place the most practical analysis, and advice, on how to
address the many problems - and some opportunities - thrown up by data protection and freedom of information legislation.
DPLP’s monthly reports update an online archive, which is an invaluable research
tool for all those who are involved in data protection. Data acquisition, SMS marketing, subject access, Freedom of Information, data retention, use of CCTV, data
sharing and data transfer abroad are all subjects that have featured recently.
Leading organisations, including the Office of the Information Commissioner, Allen
& Overy, Hammonds, Lovells, BT, Orange, West Berkshire Council, McCann
Fitzgerald, Devon County Council and Experian are subscribers.
A twelve month subscription is £430 (public sector £330, overseas £450)
for twelve issues and includes single user access to our online database.
n
n
n
n
n
world sports law report
WSLR tracks the latest developments from insolvency rules in football, to EU
Competition policy on the sale of media rights, to doping and probity. The
monthly reports update an online archive, which is an invaluable research tool
for all involved in sport.
Database rights, sponsorship, guerilla marketing, the Court of Arbitration in
Sport, sports agents, image rights, jurisdiction,domain names,ticketing and
privacy are subjects that have featured in WSLR recently.
Leading organisations, including the England & Wales Cricket Board, the
British Horse Board, Hammonds, Fladgate Fielder, Clarke Willmott and
Skadden Arps Meagre & Flom are subscribers.
A twelve month subscription is £570 (overseas £590) for twelve issues
and includes single user access to our online database.
Please enrol me as a subscriber to e-commerce law & policy at £460 (overseas £480)
Please enrol me as a subscriber to e-commerce law reports at £460 (overseas £480)
Please enrol me as a subscriber to data protection law & policy at £430 (public sector £330, overseas £450)
Please enrol me as a subscriber to world online gambling law report at £570 (overseas £590)
Please enrol me as a subscriber to world sports law report at £570 (overseas £590)
All subscriptions last for one year. You will be contacted at the end of that period to renew your subscription.
Name
Job Title
Department
Company
Address
Address
City
State
Country
Telephone
Postcode
Fax
Email
1
2
3
Please invoice me
Signature
Purchase order number
Date
I enclose a cheque for the amount of
made payable to ‘Cecile Park Publishing Limited’
Please debit my credit card
VISA n MASTERCARD n
Card No.
Expiry Date
Signature
Date
VAT No. (if ordering from an EC country)
Periodically we may allow companies, whose products or services might be of interest, to send you information.
Please tick here if you would like to hear from other companies about products or services that may add value to your subscription. n