Just on this point of the Betting Tax - at the moment tax is based on turnover (I think it's 2%) so for every €100 the bookmaker pays €2 in tax regardless of whether the bet wins or loses. Previously, before the advent of online betting, the customer paid this - I remember when I first started betting a £10 bet would cost £11 as there was a 10% tax. As a customer incentive bookmakers (Paddy Power) started to take that cost themselves and eventually the tax was reduced significantly.Originally Posted by Kiki Balboa
The issue (depending on your point of view it may not be an issue, but as a gambler myself this will be an issue for me) with raising the betting tax is that this will reduce the bookmakers profit margins and this will likely results is worse odds for punters. In France they have an incredibly high betting tax and the argument is that people shouldn't gamble so if they lose more that's better because it will discourage them from gambling!
Another result of this would be people betting into "black markets" for which there is no taxation paid - this is already increasing with the actions of some bookmakers in dealing with certain smarter customers.
Anyway it's a pretty convoluted way of saying just upping the gambling tax isn't quite as simple and might have some knock-on effects and a 3% tax on stakes from a 2% tax on stakes isn't likely to lead to a 50% increase in betting tax revenue.
I phoned the speaking clock to hear a voice speak, it said - "At the tone you will be very much alone"
My understanding is that State Aid is allowed in EU if it’s seen to be beneficial for general economic development and isn’t anti-competitive. Creating jobs in coaching, for example, should tick both “exemptions”. Giving a LOI club money to finance infrastructure or hire academy coaches should be unambiguously accretive. Also, the whole idea of actually developing an industry which exists in other EU countries but not in Ireland should be fine too. You could argue that doing so actually enhances competition across the EU – if Irish football becomes stronger. Alternatively, you could make a case that intra-EU competition doesn’t really exist in this industry anyway, except at very elite level. A government subsidy to a football club or a regional academy in Kerry or Limerick isn’t at the expense of something similar in Luxembourg.
Also, EU competition law is quite flexible and in several cases in sport has supported measures that would be seen as anti-competitive in other industries. The very recent ECJ preliminary ruling in support of UEFA and against the protagonists of the Super League is a good example. The Champions League and UEFA’s control over it is obviously anti-competitive. But the ECJ agrees that UEFA’s objective of organising a single competition across borders and with its associated resdistribution of income across the EU and down the pyramid is legitimate and proportionate (i.e., the CL doesn’t go too far in the direction of monopolistic behaviour in achieving an objective that the EU agrees is legitimately in the best interests of football in the EU). EU case law is full of examples where the principles of objective legitimacy and proportionality are used to support measures that would otherwise be seen to be anti-competitive. In fact in the ECJ Super League preliminary ruling I think the concept of the European Model of Sport was explicitly invoked, and UEFA’s upholding of this model (and the Super League’s model being seen as in conflict with this model) was a key factor in the ECJ’s ruling. In my opinion, supporting local football with direct government subsidy should be seen as actually supporting EU policy objectives.
Furthermore, I’ve heard the argument that FIFA doesn’t allow government interference in the running of national associations. I think that only relates to governments directly dictating football governance activity, not providing financial support.
I know there are some EU-facing civil servants in our ranks. Any thoughts?
I don't buy this argument I'm afraid. Gambling is a societal problem for a not insignificant number of people, and it provides little or no genunie benefit to society. It's probably in the same peer group as cigarettes and alcohol, yet gambling only gets hit with a 2% tax ? That's far too feckin' low for something that causes so much damage for soem and delivers so little benefit in-return. At least alcohol has a very clear social function.
The amount of money here could roughly double the budgets for every academy, and leave fifteen million left to fund new facilities (funding a new stadium every two years).
I'm not sure which argument you don't buy.
I see in yesterday's article a 1% increase in the betting tax (2% to 3%) was expected to raised an additional €40m on top of the €95m, so that was one point I was making that a 1% increase wouldn't simply be half, there would be a decline in revenues for a few reasons.
Raising it to 10%, for example, would definitely drive people to the black market i.e. places which don't pay tax so can offer more competitive odds and also they would have little obligation in the way of responsible gambling.
I do agree that compared to alcohol and cigarettes the tax is very low.
I phoned the speaking clock to hear a voice speak, it said - "At the tone you will be very much alone"
If the tax on cigarettes and alcohol was only 2%, I have no doubt that those industries would claim that a big leap in duty would result in people doing more home brew, buying dodgy hooch, opting for smuggled cigarattes etc etc. With associated health risks claimed as a result. Yet we have high tax on cigarettes and alcohol, and those things are fringe problems in reality.
I have no doubt that the same situation would happen with regards gambling. Industries will argue against higher taxation on their activities and claim reasons why it shouldn't happen beyond reducing their profits, as there obviously wouldn't be much sympathy for that. It's an unfounded argument that's trotted out to protect the industries revenues and appeal. And I don't really buy it personally.
Let's not forget that there was significantly less demand for gambling 15-20yrs ago. The market has expanded because it's so ubiquitous and heavily promoted now. It would be nonesense to suggest that total demand would remain the same, or largely the same, with a large portion switching to dodgy alternatives if it became a more expensive activity. In reality a lot of people would just go back to not gambling at all or as much - which is exactly what they were doing until relatively recently. As for "obligations in the way of responsible gambling...." regarding the current gambling providers. Yeaahhhhhh. Sure, sure.
Last edited by EatYerGreens; 16/05/2023 at 12:47 AM.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks