William Hill: P2P gamblers are 'flagrantly breaking the law'

The company believes 'layers' of bets on sites such as Betfair are acting as bookmakers, and while it has not yet embarked upon legal action, CEO David Harding said: "We have merely pointed out to the government that the law is being flagrantly broken, and should either be changed or upheld."

Betfair yesterday told Netimperative that it would have to relocate offshore if layers of bets were forced, en masse, to apply for bookmaker's licences. Applicants need to pass the 'fit and proper' test, to determine their suitability for offering bets, and this process would cause big problems for the existing exchanges, with their business models based on commissions taken from matched bets. If there is no laying of bets, there is can be no matching of bets and thus no exchange.

Harding said: "Ours is not an attempt to close down a new competitor, but preserve the integrity of the whole system".

He added: "We have no desire to force exchanges to close down or to move offshore, we welcome competition and innovation and believe it all serves to grow the market.

"Neither do we have any desire to harden legislation, we simply believe that exchanges should comply with the law of the land and that competition should therefore be on a level playing field."

William Hill's view is that the law is perfectly clear: "To carry out the business of being a bookmaker, you need a bookmakers permit." Furthermore, it detailed two serious concerns that it holds with regards to peer-to-peer betting.

The first, says Harding, is that on track bookmakers can take a position on the exchange, enabling them to take a different position on course, compromising the integrity of the starting price mechanism. This would then impact on off track bettors.

The second major issue is more sinister - trainers could lay bets anonymously, effectively backing their horse to lose, which of course is exactly what they could make happen. Betfair have already experienced a BBC-led investigation in this area, although the Kenyon Confronts programme was perceived to be wide of the mark. Nevertheless, this is one problem that needs to be quickly rectified to maintain quality.

Harding said: "We are not suggesting that Betfair has set out to create this situation, nor that rules cannot be devised which allow Betfair to continue without compromising the basic principles behind our system of regulation.

"What is needed is consultation to see how new forms of gambling can be appropriately regulated in order to preserve the integrity of the whole system."

When questioned about William Hill's possible entry into the peer-to-peer market, Harding said the company had a variety of commercial options but warned: "Until and unless the law is changed then we would not compromise our status by playing in a game which is patently illegal."

The company believes that the UK's "unambigious" regulatory framework for gaming should not be compromised, but should remain consistent within the law, or, the law should be amended to include codes of practice aimed at the exchange betting market.

Legislation cannot be changed quickly, and if the government upholds the law - which Betfair will contest in court on the grounds that it is unclear - then it will stop the online peer-to-peer gaming market dead in its tracks.

Harding reasoned: "Whether outmoded or not, the current law has directly resulted in the best regulated, most crime free and highest integrity gambling industry in the world, and to put that at risk by allowing unlicensed, illegal gambling on exchanges is, in our view, folly."



"www.willhill.com ":www.willhill.com

"www.betfair.com ":www.betfair.com

"Email us about this story ":mailto:editorial@netimperative.com