Eight years after a review into Australia’s online wagering space proposed legalizing online in-play sports betting, there has been no movement in that direction. IAG asks the question, Why?
Published in 2016, Australia’s Review of Illegal Offshore Wagering – more commonly known as “The O’Farrell Review” after lead reviewer and former NSW state premier Barry O’Farrell – provided a comprehensive look at the scope of illegal offshore wagering being offered to the local market, as well as what measures were and could be utilized to mitigate it.
The detailed 186-page report that followed contained a total of 19 recommendations aimed at solving some of the key issues facing Australia’s online wagering industry, including potential updates to the Interactive Gambling Act 2001. These include the establishment of a national policy framework, restrictions around advertising of betting products, greater powers to block illegal offshore websites and the implementation of further requirements of licensed operators around consumer protections, including the ability for customers to set their own limits.
Most of these 19 recommendations have either been implemented in the years since or soon will be, notwithstanding the findings of a more recent parliamentary inquiry into online gambling harm completed in 2023.
Yet one issue that stands out for its stark lack of progress is that of live online in-play betting – a betting option that allows punters to place live bets after the commencement of a sporting event and with odds changing in real time as the event unfolds.
Under current Australian law, in-play wagering is permitted in retail environments and on horse racing but is restricted in the online world when it comes to sporting events. Although customers who hold an online account with any Australian sportsbooks can place an in-play bet by phoning an operator, placing a bet directly online is not allowed.
In-play betting is indirectly referenced in Recommendation 15 of the O’Farrell Review, which states, “Further research should be undertaken on the impact of betting restrictions on illegal offshore wagering and the identification of options to improve the situation.”
This call to review restrictions on online in-play betting has received almost universal support in the years since, with evidence showing that the inability of Australian consumers to place live online in-play bets is a major driver of those consumers to illegal offshore sites.
In a 2017 study ordered by the Department of Social Services in response to Recommendation 15 of the O’Farrell Review, conducted by the Australian Gambling Research Centre and the Australian Institute of Family Studies, it was noted that there were “indications that these restrictions imposed by operators and other government-imposed restrictions to online in-play sports betting may be acting as push factors to encourage Australian gamblers to use illegal offshore wagering operators.”
The report added, “Australians using illegal offshore wagering operators is an issue for a number of reasons. First, there are control and protection issues related to under- or un-regulated offshore sites in terms of adequate consumer protections, the potential for fraud, money-laundering and sporting integrity issues (e.g. match-fixing).
“Second, there is the issue of a loss of revenue to governments and sporting bodies through taxes, license and product fees and to Australian businesses through loss of customers.”
So why the delay? The most obvious reason relates to Recommendation 3 of the O’Farrell Review, which states that “Until the proposed national framework is established and operating, consideration of additional in-play betting products should be deferred and legislative steps taken to respect the original intent of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001.”
Eight years on, a national regulatory model is no closer to realization, while a national framework is only now starting to become a reality.
“The national framework needs to be fully settled first, and it will be sometime before the in-play issue is even discussed,” notes Jamie Nettleton, a Partner and gambling law specialist at Australian law firm Addisons. “At the moment it is mostly industry pushing for it.
“It’s certainly not being pushed by government or [communications and media regulator] ACMA, and until there is a realization that there is a greater harm from offshore operators, or an admission that current rules are not effective, they don’t even think a discussion is necessary.”
For many though, such discussions are long overdue.
“From my perspective, anything that encourages people to move to the offshore market, to the illegal market, is a risk for us,” said Lara Hayes, Acting Director, Sports Wagering & Competition Manipulation for Sport Integrity Australia, when asked about the issue during the recent Regulating the Game conference in Sydney. “It makes it very difficult for us to know what’s going on, what the integrity risks are.
“From a personal perspective I think we need to have a conversation about it, and it’s one of the challenges that we face, because often these conversations just aren’t happening and on the rare occasions when these conversations are happening they can be quite emotive and in a polarizing environment.
“I’d like to see a greater evidence-driven conversation about these things so we can have a balanced view and then come up with a considered, proportionate response to these issues.”
Industry body Responsible Wagering Australia, unsurprisingly, offers a similar viewpoint, stating, “Expanding the provision of in-play wagering would enable more effective identification of potential wagering-related match-fixing and allow sporting codes, wagering providers and governments to realise the benefits of providing a safe, regulated product that meets consumer market demands.”
Yet as we wait, the problem of Australians migrating towards offshore sites that provide little to no consumer protections – but do offer customers a far greater choice when it comes to betting opportunities – continues to grow.
According to a recent study by the International Betting Integrity Association (IBIA), there remains globally a “strong correlation” between the wide availability of legal sports betting products and the proportion of consumers who place bets with onshore regulated sports betting operators.
It also reveals that restricting consumers from betting on products such as “in-play” betting and “side” or “exotic” markets significantly increases the chances of them using unlicensed offshore operators.
The study, titled The Availability of Sports Betting Products: An Economic and Integrity Analysis, utilizes data to extrapolate the “channeling rates” of customers to locally licensed online operators in their respective countries. Great Britain, for example, which offers a wide range of betting products to its customers, boasts an onshore consumer channeling rate of 97%, whereas Australia’s rate is much lower at 75%.
Perhaps surprisingly, the IBIA told Inside Asian Gaming it sees little connection between the proliferation of online in-play betting globally and any increased compromising of sports integrity, based on data from the suspicious betting activity it collates.
“The majority of the betting alerts we see are still in the pre-market just because there is more liquidity,” explains IBIA CEO, Khalid Ali. “One of the things about in-play is that the regulators do limit the amount of money that can be bet, so for a criminal, that’s more challenging.
“The other thing to take away is that 26% of bets offered are in-play and pre-market, so you can actually bet on an in-play event before the match actually takes place.
“If you can bet on it pre-match, why not just offer it during play as well?”
Notably, the previously referenced 2017 study by the Department of Social Services, compiled in response to Recommendation 15 of the O’Farrell Review, said it was “generally agreed by respondents from all community and stakeholder groups in this study that in-play betting was now an integral part of sports wagering and had mass appeal.
“While all acknowledged that there were some concerns around the risk posed by in-play betting for problem gambling, they argued that a blanket restriction of these products online appeared to be against the global trend in the gambling market and was coming at some financial cost to Australian operators and sporting bodies.”
Adds Nettleton, “The overseas view is that Australia’s approach is unrealistic.
“Unfortunately, online operators are on the nose at the moment, having been seen to have pushed the envelope for so long on things like advertising. That’s going to be a difficult one to overcome.
“There is also a view in Australia that more gambling means more harm, which is a simplistic view but is also one of the factors holding up meaningful discussion.
“There is no doubt that discussion is needed, but it will be difficult for the industry to get a receptive audience.”
