iGaming Daily

Hello and welcome to today's edition of iGaming
Daily, when for a change we'll be talking about

some news that didn't happen, namely the much
expected rise in gambling taxes in the UK budget.

So join me to discuss this non-event and other
matters arriving from Rachel Reeves' historic

first budget are SBC's content director Ted
Menmure and payment expert editor Ted Orme

Clay. Well, Ted. down in London. How are you
today? Very well, Martin. How's your break?

Yeah, very good. Peaceful. I've had enough of
airports for one year with all the travel we

do with work. So I sat around the house for
a week. It was extremely relaxing and quite

pleasing. So thanks for asking. And Ted, how
are you back in Manchester after a trip to,

I believe, Monaco last week, which is like Ashton
and Lyme where our office is. Yeah, almost

identical in every conceivable way, actually.
Yeah. You know, the city state of Ashton was

famous for its casinos, F1 tracks and high performance
sports cars.

Yeah, yeah. Back in Manchester after a trip
to France and Monaco to the Sportale conference,

which was a very, very interesting love, a lot
of good panels and speeches all about sports

business, sports tech, broadcasting sponsorship.
Yeah, if we can just alert Rachel Reeves that

you were taking the SPC private jet. Yeah. And
Ted, as you appear to, I'll set you up to for

a bit of self-promotion there and you've missed
that open goal. So you can read all about some

of those, the interesting panels from that conference
on Insider Sport. Right. Before we get into

chatting about the budget. It seems a good time
to mention that iGaming Daily is brought to

you in part with OptiMove, the number one CRM
solution for the iGaming industry. Okay, with

that out of the way, let's start maybe by being
a bit more general rather than going straight

into the bit about the gambling tax, which is
talking about something that didn't happen.

Ted, what are the main takeaways you had from
the budget? Is it a... Labour came in with

this big promise they were going to be the party
for growth and they're going to support business

and so on. What do you think businesses in the
gambling industry and perhaps other sectors

should take away from what we heard last week?
Okay, so this budget marks a shift from the

prior government strategies. So it's moving
incentives or incentives for economic growth.

into public investment. I think that is labor's
long-term view of how it wishes to realign

and fix the economy. From taking an overall
view, Rachel reads one of this budget and literally

just announced that, look, the economy needs
to fill a 40 billion pound black hole. Businesses

will face increased taxes, notably... and national
in high-end insurance contributions. And this

was detailed as the main kind of fiscal tool
by the Chancellor to fill the deficit. High

interest rates also will raise kind of costs
on business. And some argue that the budget

kind of transfers wealth from companies into
public services, which will kind of divide

opinion on kind of labor strategy. Overall,
kind of the tax deficit. whether placed on

business will affect consumers indirectly, directly
or indirectly. So the burden will be borne

by the electorate. It was a budget of tough
measures and a budget of tough medicines. And

I think one that the Labour government did not
want to announce, but it has to kind of look

to fix the UK economy. Yeah, I think that's
right. And it's a budget that's had. we are

at least four years away from the next election.
So we're getting the painful stuff out of the

way now. But you did raise an interesting point
there about how they're trying to refocus the

economy because if things go to plan, the public
sector will be the highest percentage of the

UK economy. It's been since Jim Callaghan's
government back in 1979. So it's a... a bit

more to this rather than just a few pence on
national insurance here and there. Some people

pay more in inheritance tax and so on. The overall
theme of it is genuinely historic. It's the

first time for a long time I've been able to
say that about a budget. Ted, what did you

pick out as highlights from it? Anything much
relating to sort of payments or investment

or any of the beat you cover on payment expert?
Yeah, it's an interesting one. I think, well,

firstly, obviously Ted's hit the nail on the
head really with, I think what the Labour government's

ambitions are. Obviously their focus is on stimulating
growth through investment. Part of this investment

from some of the stuff I've read is into this
quite extensive plan for funding into more

research. This is obviously going to be quite
varied, you know, research can cover just about

anything. But I think from the payments and
fintech side of things, Labour have been very

vocal over the past couple of months about they
want to see continued support for certain financial

innovations and initiatives, certainly fintech
ones. There's been a lot of discourse around

open banking and artificial intelligence, unsurprisingly
really given how much those are dominating

a lot of discussion in fintech and payments
at the moment. This is also kind of a continuation

of what the conservatives are trying to do,
particularly under Sunak, who is quite a big

fan of the financial services sector. I think
probably given his professional background,

obviously, Labour are trying to build on that
and put their own sort of spin on it in their

own, in their own style, obviously being a very
different ideological party to the conservatives.

This is, obviously, this is the, this is the
area that I think is probably for the payments

and fintech kind of sector to keep an eye on.
where this research funding might go and how

they can benefit from this. And then in turn,
I guess, how the gambling sector, stakeholders

in that should probably pay attention to that
and see how they could benefit. There's obviously

a lot of conversations around what FinTech initiatives
and payments initiatives, what potential they

can have for the gambling sector. We saw that
discussed quite a bit at our conference in

Lisbon a couple of months ago. And it's obviously
quite a common talking point on a lot of our

media sites as well. Obviously, to build on
that, though, the main way that they're planning

on funding this is through these tax raises.
I think they want to raise an additional 40

billion in tax, a lot of it chiefly from companies.
I think that is, there's been, the kind of

the reaction I've seen has been mixed. There's
been a lot of welcoming of the research, but

a lot of caution around the taxation side of
things because businesses are a bit worried

about what financial burden this could place
on them. interesting there on the one hand,

they're doing things to encourage research,
encourage technological development. On the

other hand, they're removing some of the rewards
for it with the capital gains tax changes.

But ultimately, you know, something has to pay
for public services, doesn't it? And we can

argue, I'm sure even the three of us will probably
have different opinions on what that is. And

I'm sure there are about 20 different opinions
amongst the members of the House of Commons

as well. So let's focus a bit on the gambling
side of things then. I mean, obviously the

rise in employers' national insurance is going
to be a big cost for, in particular, the big

employers in the sector, the tier one businesses
and particularly those with retail estates

and so on. temptation that Rachel Reeves did
avoid was increasing gambling taxes despite

some sort of pressure from people who you would
regard as natural labor supporters, I think.

So Ted, perhaps you could tell us a bit about
what had been trailed and what the industry

feared and then I guess some of the reaction
we've had about the fact it did not materialize

in the end. Okay. So in the weeks leading up
to the budget, we had two think tanks present

to the treasury, which is effectively a doubling
on remote gambling duties or high risk games

for industry taxes. So I believe that concerns
were legitimate in general, just because I

believe that all industries and all leaderships
should be concerned about the first budget.

statement of a new government and one that really
has to fill a deficit of 25 billion pounds.

Overall, the UK government escapes the doubling
in taxes proposed by these think tanks. Really,

I don't know how seriously the treasury took
in these considerations put forward as they

would have only raised about one billion pounds.
There is somewhat of a relief across the industry

but overall, and I think most importantly is
that with the budget finished, And I think

that the industry can just return back to focusing
on the finalization or concluding the gambling

review. The Tory government can do that. So
let's hope that the Labour government can.

Will Barron Sure. And there was very deep in
the detail of the documents that came out after

the speech in parliament. There was a little
hint of some possible changes in the future

or consideration of changes in the future to
the tax regime. Yes, the Labour government

have signed that they are going to streamline
remote tax duties, especially on phone lines

and remote gaming segments under one bracket,
which is somewhat of a positive and that they're

not going to consider raising or reviewing tax
rates until the 2006 budget. So, there is scope

there. Again, this returns the industry back
to needing to finalize its generational review,

which is a positive overall. Sure. And Ted,
what sort of reaction have we seen to this

non-announcement and non-raising of taxes? I
imagine, I'm sure Ted will be a bit more clued

up on this than me coming from the SPC side
of things. It's been broadly welcomed, has

it not? I think the Bettingham Gaming Council
put out a statement praising the fact that

this wasn't in there after quite a lot of media
speculation. even some questions raised in

parliament, if I remember rightly from a parliamentary
session I saw with, I believe it was with Lisa

Nandy from DCMS. So yeah, I'd say the industry
is probably incredibly relieved to not have

this additional financial pressure. I think
as Ted outlined there, it seems to be quite

a sensible decision, I think, to let the rest
of the gambling act review adoption take its

course so that the industry sort of respond
to that and adjust to these various regulatory

changes that are coming in before any more taxation
is put on top of it to help with Labour's ambitions,

if I were to discuss, to reinvest in the economy
and things like that. Ted, sorry, I can see

you're wanting to get in on this. Yeah. I mean,
I think one of the positive things about this

budget is that, yes, it had tough measures,
but I don't think that it was punitive on industries,

right? So... The actual one-to-one tax increases
on individual industries, we got one on vapes,

which Keir was very clear that he would implement,
one on private jet flights, which was somewhat

of a surprise. And then the other kind of specific
measure, I think, was on our sugary drinks.

So gaming wasn't kind of imposing that, wasn't
put in that bracket. I think it kind of escapes

anything punitive and I think it returns kind
of labor to thinking like long-term on a tax-effective

industry and how it kind of plans for that.
So it's a positive kind of first direction

for labor and gaming. Yeah, I think so. I mean,
it would seem a fairly odd thing to do. It

is a successful industry that does raise a reasonable
chunk of money for the public finances. I think

it's about 0.3%. of the public budget comes
from gambling taxes. So why would you mess

with it? But there's no sign of the pressure
groups taking this as a defeat and going back

and thinking of something else because they've
already been outed. There's a piece unsurprisingly

in The Guardian. in which I quoted Derek Webb,
the leading gambling reform campaigner and

Labour's fifth biggest donor, describing this
as a missed opportunity and talking about how

popular it would have been with the public as
a vote winner and so on. And also the Lib Dems,

who perhaps emboldened by now being the third
biggest party in parliament and having quite

a sizeable number of MPs in there, have spoken
out against. But again, Martin, I think in

kind of the back, I'm sure any criticism of
that budget not adding gambling taxes is if

you speak to any CFO or CEO, in any budget,
they're always prepared for any increase in

taxes towards gambling. And I think kind of
leadership can kind of factor in. What they

can't factor in is the context of what was brought
forward by those think tanks, which was an

immediate doubling of taxes, right? And that
would have just sent shockwaves across the

industry, but also across the industry's value
chain, i.e. for horse racing, for advertising,

for the way it sets up its technology systems.
That would have been kind of the shock effect

of that type of budget coming in for gambling.

But there's just no guarantee that, you know,
come two years time, they will be tax raised

or not. That's up to the Labour government and
that's down to how the UK economy plays out.

Yeah, I think so. There's no doubt about it.
This budget doesn't go quite as well as they're

expecting and, you know, in any budget there's
a range of possibilities about how successful

it will be in achieving its aims. It's eminently
possible in two, three years time, Rachel includes

more tax rises in different sectors. You would
like to think though that it won't be a doubling

overnight if that is the case. Okay. Obviously,
the budget last week and the historic changes

that have been brought in during it was the
big political story in the UK. I believe there's

also something going on in the political world
on the other side of the Atlantic, which people

have been following quite closely. Start with
you a bit, Ted. There's a colossal amount of

interest from punters in the UK on the US election,
which must be an interesting spectacle if you're

sitting in the US where you're not allowed to
bet on the election. What can you tell us about

what's been happening on, in particular, the
exchanges and so on? Because they've been doing

some, they've been seeing some serious action
over the last two or three days, haven't they?

Yeah. Obviously, political betting, as you said,
political betting is not allowed in the US,

It's a very popular market, certainly around
these big elections. And I don't think you

get anything bigger than the US elections. They're
always far more of, I should say, spectacle,

I think, than our counterparts in the UK because
of them being a lot more personalised. I think

whilst in the UK, obviously things are a lot
more on a party basis. Although that has been

changing a lot over the past couple of decades,
I think. But still in the US, it's a lot more,

there's a lot more of a media frenzy and a big
sort of I don't know, media showdown around

it. There's like I said, there's a lot more
of a spectacle. So it makes it a lot more engaging

for a betting side of thing, I think. And this
election in particular, obviously we've got

the return of Donald Trump after losing the
last one and the various fiery aftermath of

that. And then you've got Kamala Harris on the
other hand, who has a lot of, you know, the

potential has become the first ever woman president
of the US. So it's a very historic one. There's

been Donald Trump is a figure that obviously
is constantly caught in controversy. There's

been all these debates around it stirring up
interest. The US elections are always a very

popular betting market. I think all of these
factors have just made that even more so. Then

to top it all off on top of that, the thing
that's really interesting to follow on the

UK is as you've mentioned with these exchanges,
Martin, UK

quite a margin, as in like there's a lot more
UK bettors betting in favor of Trump than there

are of Harris, which is interesting because
the polls are suggesting that the two are for

the most part neck and neck and a lot of the
ones I've seen more often than not are putting

Harris ahead of Trump. So there's a very interesting
disconnect between the way the betting exchanges

are expecting it and between how the official
opinion polls are expecting it. Yeah, it's

often said that the betting markets are a better
guide than the polls to who's going to win

an election, but they don't appear to be reflecting
in any way what the pollsters are saying, even

what the reports coming in from on the ground
in those US states are saying either. So it'd

be interesting to see whether we actually follow
that perceived wisdom on the importance of

political betting markets here. And just one
more thing while I've got you Ted. There's

no real impact on the... likely direct impact
anyway on the gambling industry from the presidential

election in the US. I'm sure there'll be corporate
taxes and things like that will be an issue

down the line. But on your beat, crypto is a
big issue in this. What are you expecting to

happen? Well, it will be either Trump or Harris,
I guess, but there will be a big story if it's

neither of them. But yeah, what are you expecting?
They've talked both quite extensively about

the potential offered by crypto for the US economy,
haven't they? Good news for the industry of

Trump wins, do you think? I feel that there
are certainly a few stakeholders in the industry

who would feel that way. This election has seen,
I think what I would call some unprecedented

levels of activism and campaigning among the
crypto sector in the US, at least from what

I can think of, three political action committees
that have been very active throughout all of

this. I think obviously to our non-US audiences
and any US audiences who are listening can

correct me if I'm wrong. via messaging on LinkedIn
or something, I don't know. A political action

committee is an organization that's established
to effectively just sort of channel campaign

funds towards certain candidates around who
are very active on certain issues. So from

what I've seen for the most part, the Republican
candidates, both Donald Trump for the president

and the various ones in the Congress who are
also standing this week. The Republicans tend

to be more pro crypto than the Democrats. I
think

if Harris is to be elected, we can expect a
continuation of how the Biden administration

has been approaching cryptocurrency, which I
think would be a cautious approach. I think

it might be an appropriate term for it. Some
in the crypto sector view it as even a confrontational

approach and have been quite critical of the...
Securities and Exchange Commission's leadership

under Biden, the SEC leadership is appointed
by the president, who they accuse of having

an approach to sort of constant enforcement.
However, I think obviously on the flip side

of that, the various Democratic politicians
probably argue they're concerned about cases

of fraudulent activity, cases of money laundering,
cases of securities laws being broken by certain

bad actors, I guess we could say within crypto.
And that's the reason for these enforcement

actions. On the Republican side of it, we've
had Donald Trump, who has been extremely vocal

about courting cryptocurrency votes. He spoke
at the Bitcoin 2024 conference earlier this

year saying about he wants to make the US a
Bitcoin superpower. I believe it was his terminology.

If you want to replay that in your head and
his voice, I think it would fit quite well.

And then, well, he said he spoke at the Libertarian
National Convention earlier this year, saying

something like, I'm going to make sure that
the government will never come after all your

Bitcoin. You know, he's been very vocal in courting
the sector. But he also really hates central

bank digital currencies, which is an interesting
one there, because obviously he sees that as

being, as the term suggests, just far too centralized.
And I think, you know, it's more in favor of

like the private market. So yeah, sorry, Martin,
I've given you an incredibly long-winded answer

there. But yeah, if Harris gets elected, you
can expect more of the same. If Trump gets

elected, you can expect maybe some, yeah, a
lot of easing off of regulation around private

cryptocurrency holding, I reckon. Okay. That's
interesting. And if I had as many criminal

cases outstanding as... former president, I
would be a bit wary about the tracking that

comes with CBDCs as well. It's perhaps understandable.
Well, Ted, thank you for joining me today to

discuss this. Hopefully by the time we reconvene
next week, there will be an outright winner

in the US election. We might have some of the
problems we saw last time around. But thank

you all for listening. join the iGamingDaily
team for another edition tomorrow. Thank you.