Verizon may enter US sports betting market if legalized

[The Buzz]

Telecommunications conglomerate Verizon is considering entering the U.S. sports betting market, which could become legal in the U.S. before the year is out.

According to a report on Bloomberg.com, Verizon has been meeting with experts and consultants to assess the potential for a "sports-focused online gambling venture" if the laws change. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision early this year in a case that challenges the current federal prohibition on sports gambling. Verizon declined to comment.

From Bloomberg:

The company may ultimately decide to stay away from gambling. After an earlier exploration, Verizon concluded that entering the business, dominated by casinos, would be a formidable competitive challenge, one of the people said.

But Verizon is trying to transform itself into a more diversified media business with deals like its $4.5 billion acquisition of Yahoo, and gambling is a tempting potential growth market. The company has the nation’s largest mobile network, with more than 100 million subscribers, and Yahoo has 1.3 billion users. Yahoo’s fantasy sports unit has tens of millions of fans who spend 30 billion minutes a year managing imaginary teams and picking players, often paying fees to participate in guaranteed prize pools.

Instead of trying to build a gambling business internally, Verizon could look at acquiring online sports-betting companies to speed up the process. That’s a strategy it has used in the past to get into a new line of business, such as its acquisition of Intel Corp.’s OnCue video service in 2014.

Verizon also has streaming rights to some National Football League and National Basketball Association games, which opens the door to live betting alongside broadcasts, a popular offering in markets like the U.K. Last week, when Verizon announced an expanded streaming deal with the NBA, Chief Executive Officer Lowell McAdam and NBA Commissioner Adam Silver discussed a $25 million joint investment to develop features like quarter-by-quarter fantasy betting. Both Verizon and the NBA see such contests as a way to boost fans’ interest and engagement in live games, even otherwise boring ones.

According to Eilers & Krejcik Gaming, a "fully regulated U.S. gambling market would be worth as much as $15.8 billion in revenue" and include 44 million customers wagering $245 billion annually -- about three times bigger than the firm’s estimate of the current black market for sports betting in the U.S.

Read more here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...lization-nears

[Malikbhai]

What will happen to those needless FBI busts and prosecutions?

Would these offshore betting sites be still as big as they are right now; I do not think so.

[Cash Bonus]

This would really be a total game changer.

I would like to see that.

We could all certainly do with fewer restrictions on gambling-related issues.

[Former Member 14]

We could all certainly do with fewer restrictions on gambling-related issues.

Clearly you don't bother to read the damn title, much less the story.

Verizon may enter US sports betting market if legalized

"fully regulated U.S. gambling market"

I don't know what rock you've been under BUT with regulatory markets, come rules and compliance. The UKGC is a good example. How the hell USA legalisation would make it less restrictive, is ludicrous!

Or do you now suffer from Dyslexia too (is that the next excuse for these spammy posts)

[Bojoko.com]

This could be great news from the perspective that regulation might come in sooner if big players are looking to invest in the industry. Didn't Alibaba/Jack Ma recently say something about investing in online gambling as well?

[Roulette Zeitung]

I am very sure, that the above post from the member "Happyfeet" have been reported in the meantime. Regarding the last sentence of that post, it's about time for GPWA staff to stop this stalking. It is so disgusting, that not even I will quote it, but I made a backup in case, he will edit it before GPWA will review it.

With that I now officially request an investigation regarding "Happyfeet" and his account. Less crypted information about the person, who has a history of harassment of women and who chased also after Casinomeister staff and has since that a "Dodgy whacko backstabber" rating there, can be find in the "Suggestion Box, Membership Inquiries and Contact Info" area of GPWA, thread "Member Focus", page 6, Post #119.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Leopold

[Triple7]

Would these offshore betting sites be still as big as they are right now; I do not think so.

Legalizing usually means regulating. I think a grey market is the best for affiliates. Like for example Sweden. As soon as it's legal and regulated, there will be a bunch of rules and bureaucracy.

Leave alone the decrease in commissions and also it's the start sign for shaving and contract breach usually.

UKGC is a good example, but also Romania were affiliates need to buy a license of € 12.000 (which is 2 times the average year income in Romania) or Belgium were affiliates will be outlawed. If I'm right in Italy affiliates lost all their playerbases, etc.

I wouldn't be suprised if some US states will also apply something like licenses for affiliates and that big companies in the US will try it without affiliate programs.

I think offshore brands will lose ground, although there will always be a part of the pie for unregulated brands.

[Anthony]

HappyFeet, the attacking of each other must stop. We are aware of the differences of opinions on the forum, but that does not justify publicly attacking each other. We are here to conduct business, let's get back to that.

[Roulette Zeitung]

"The attacking of each other must stop."

"each other"

In order to maintain the chronology of the event here a sober fact check:

"The Buzz" opened this neutral information thread.

Member "vtyunby65" gave the starting post a thanks.

Two people replied on topic, member "redblueassociates" and member "vtyunby65".

Member "happyfeet", who was officially debunked minutes ago being a fraud, because he faked an allegedly association with Video Slots in his GPWA profile page, a fake association, which has been removed by GPWA now, also confirmed with an official statement, he replied as next member in this thread, said to the thread starter "I don't know what rock you've been under" and had also two statements for member "vtyunby65" in that post.

Member "happyfeet" unfounded, unfair and untruly attacked member "vtyunby65" in his post with the statement "Or do you now suffer from Dyslexia too (is that the next excuse for these spammy posts)". He again accused him in the public being a "spammer", one of the worst "crimes" on a forum, so a heavy accusation.

The post has been reported to GPWA due to this sentence.

The sentence has not been removed, edited or commented.

With my post as a result of that sentence I made a request to investigate member "happyfeet" and described proven facts about his history and some hints who he is.

Triple7 replied to the thread starter on the original content.

This is the chronology of the event here and nothing else.

There is no "each other".

Leopold

[Top Domains]

Question:

1. Isn't the Wire Act of 1961 still interpreted as prohibiting online sports betting even if not other forms of online gambling and poker?

2. Even if SCOTUS effectively "legalizes" sports betting with the pending New Jersey sports betting decision, doesn't that still leave the Wire Act in place as prohibiting anything online until that too is remedied?

[PROFRBcom]

Question:

1. Isn't the Wire Act of 1961 still interpreted as prohibiting online sports betting even if not other forms of online gambling and poker?

2. Even if SCOTUS effectively "legalizes" sports betting with the pending New Jersey sports betting decision, doesn't that still leave the Wire Act in place as prohibiting anything online until that too is remedied?

As far as I understand it, you are correct. The state lottery decision in 2011 seemingly carved poker and other forms of gambling out of the wire act leaving behind only sports betting.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/20...-gambling-law/

[TheGooner]

The 1960's Wire Act was always a bit of a reach when claiming it banned online gambling - especially if you consider wi-fi access then it's totally irrelevant legislation. But the US government will do what it wants to do to protect it's tax base (and backhand donors) of licensed casinos and their owners.

If the US government wants licensed sports betting nationwide - then they'll simply announce that a 1960's law was clearly not intended to affect a 21st century business. Personally, I don't think that will happen yet - the existing casino holders are not willing to accept competition - and they want to hold onto their lucrative niche.

[Top Domains]

As far as I understand it, you are correct. The state lottery decision in 2011 seemingly carved poker and other forms of gambling out of the wire act leaving behind only sports betting.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/20...-gambling-law/

The 1960's Wire Act was always a bit of a reach when claiming it banned online gambling - especially if you consider wi-fi access then it's totally irrelevant legislation. [...]

[...] Personally, I don't think that will happen yet - the existing casino holders are not willing to accept competition - and they want to hold onto their lucrative niche.

I would say a total reach.

JW sure minces no words about where they stand on the matter with an article like that.

To me one of the most perverse ironies of "RAWA" is that the 2011 DOJ decision is what did "restore" the Wire Act to its true original purpose.

I think SCOTUS is about to kill PASPA. If that happens, I expect it would soon become completely intolerable to business to not be allowed to conduct sports betting operations online in addition to brick and mortar. I believe that would probably also greatly intensify and expand what I consider to be the correction already underway in the US regarding other forms of online gambling and poker.