How will the High Court’s decision impact racing and wagering?
By ScottWoodward.me, 3 Apr 2012 ScottWoodward.me is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- Betfair, Horse Racing, Peter V'Landys
Related coverage
- Horse Racing news
- Horse Racing news
- Black Caviar Group 1 wins news
- Black Caviar's first trial win news
- Black Caviar's career news
Punters are the big losers following the High Court of Australia’s decision last Friday.
The High Court rejected Sportsbet and Betfair’s claims that the decision to impose a 1.5 percent wagering turnover fee for the right to publish New South Wales race fields was unconstitutional on the grounds that it is discriminatory and protectionist in its nature.
By now, we understand the views of Racing New South Wales (RNSW), the corporate bookmakers, as well as the betting company Betfair, who all have their own agendas to push in this dispute. So let us have an objective look from a punter’s perspective and see how the decision will impact the ability to wager in a competitive market place.
RNSW CEO Peter V’Landys said on TVN on Sunday, “this was never about the punter”. However, what he has always failed to comprehend is that everything starts with the punter’s dollar and the finished product in his patch is likely now to be more expensive and slowly force racing punters to more attractive options, of which there are plenty.
He claims to want to look after the 50,000 participants in the racing industry, but continues to ignore his most important and valuable participants, the four million punters who actually fund the industry.
There are two burning questions. What will happen to Betfair, and what will happen to the bookies?
It remains to be seen if Betfair Australia will test their arm at the ACCC, but given their business model is based on punters betting against each other with high turnover and potentially little or no gross profit, the new tax would render their business on horse racing in New South Wales unsustainable.
Under the current model it is possible for two punters betting against each other to turn over $1m, with both breaking even, but Betfair has to cough up 1.5 percent tax of the amount ($15,000). Every day punters back horses at 1.01 “in the run” for large amounts, and while the punter who may invest $1,000 would stand to win only $10, Betfair would be taxed $15.
James Packer, the 50 percent part owner of the Australian part of Betfair, is not noted for continuing to put in good money after bad, and the only way likely for him to stay would be for the exchange to apply for a corporate bookmakers’ licence. The odds are he will either dilute his stake or sever his ties to focus on his casino empire.
Given that it will now be six times more expensive for Betfair to offer New South Wales racing to customers compared to offering racing from any other state in Australia, the only viable choice they appear to have is to withdraw, either blacklisting racing in NSW or marketing it from the U.K.
This would dramatically and adversely impact liquidity and make the New South Wales racing product less attractive and competitive, forcing thousands of punters to turn to sports betting and online casinos.
ChampionProfits.com trading guru Tony (The Badger) Hargraves underlined the dilemma facing Betfair Australia based on some typical trading scenarios that he experienced on Sunday. The Badger was pre-race trading on the Randwick meeting. On one race he turned over $2,400 and made a $30 profit on the race.
Betfair took a commission payment from the Badger of 60 cents, but under the new 1.5 percent turnover tax law, a further $36 fee would have to be handed over to RNSW, who would actually make a bigger profit than the Badger.
However, the big loser is Betfair Australia. This is a very typical trading scenario and one that the Badger typically implements on 15 or more races every day, like thousands of other traders.
The flow-on impact will also reduce turnover for other operators like the TAB, as the very nature of the Betfair betting exchange generates millions of incremental dollars in bet backs and arbitrages.
There will be many nervous Betfair employees in Hobart and Melbourne this week wondering what Easter will bring.
The world’s second biggest exchange, Betdaq, owned by Irish billionaire Dermot Desmond, pulled out of Australia last July, promising to be back. But paying a tax based on turnover for any exchange does not compute.
A horse is traded at the odds of 1.01 on almost every race. As an example, imagine Punter A wins $9.5 after paying Betfair 5 percent commission when he backed a horse (at $1000) in the run at 1.01 and it won. Punter B, who bet against Punter A, lost $10. Betfair, who facilitated the bet, won 50 cents from Punter A, but had to pay RNSW $15.
As for the bookies, the major players will build the new tax into their product mix and look at different ways to develop incremental margins, like promoting multis and so on, but clearly the millions that they have invested into marketing racing in New South Wales will now be diverted into other states and sports.
They have been promoting racing in New South Wales with expensive TV commercials and adverts in the print media, but due to RNSW’s exclusive arrangement with their buddies at the TAB, the bookies have been banned at the track.
U.K. betting powerhouse Bet365 is one of the world’s largest gambling sites, and has been set up in North Sydney for almost six months now waiting on the High Court’s decision. We can expect an announcement shortly once they re-write their business plan.
The small to medium bookies will likely struggle to maintain a tax on turnover, and it is known that not all bookies accrued back payments, with at least one high-profile mid-sized bookie not expected to be splashing out on expensive eggs this weekend.
Sportsbet Executive Chairman, Matt Tripp, who also founded Sportingbet Aust, expressed concern that last Friday’s decision may lead to reduced income for racing.
“As has been proven by the increase in wagering turnover since the emergence of corporate bookmakers, competition stimulates choice and in turn drives growth and revenue to racing. Giving the TAB a walk-up start will hinder competition, and restrict growth which may harm revenues to racing.” Tripp said.
“However, we will continue to provide competition to the TAB by providing our one million-plus customers with the best prices, the best range of products, and the best service in Australia. For every dollar staked, the TAB takes more than twice as much from punters as we do. This won’t change as a result of the court’s decision,” he added.
“If product fees are pushed too high, it has the potential to reduce both competition and consumer choice, to reduce racing’s wagering appeal compared to sports, and ultimately some wagering operators may decide to relocate offshore.”
The major benefactors from the court decision are racing’s fat cats, the big breeders and owners, who can now buy and sell yearlings for more as the punters’ money will increase prize money.
“Things just got more expensive after Friday,” according to Sky Racing’s Ron Dufficy, when asked if he will be buying at the sales.
RNSW would have declined to prize money levels of the 60s had they been unsuccessful in court, and many observers are concerned that the industry should never have been put in such a precarious position, especially when Racing Victoria are thriving under a gross profit strategy with bookies.
RNSW were on their financial knees when they were defeated in the initial court case almost three years ago by the corporate bookmakers, giving them a powerful bargaining position, but in the interests of the racing industry, the bookies agreed to allow RNSW access to the accrued funds of some $150m.
The bookies could have played hard ball and withheld the funds pending the appeal which would have activated enormous pressure to negotiate a mutual early agreement. What RNSW do not know is that the major bookies would have passed on the funds even if they were successful in the High Court as a gesture of goodwill and to cement their position as a future long term strategic partner.
Sadly, a tax on bookies’ turnover as opposed to gross profit will make the New South Wales racing product less attractive and competitive, and long term the turnover tax will continue to reduce consumer investment and crowds at the track.
As Matt Tripp correctly pointed out, “the emergence of corporate bookmakers has been a wonderful shot in the arm for punters” as they have a choice now. They can experience expanded markets that are more attractive to consumers, stimulating interest levels that were not prevalent when the punter only had the TAB and SP bookie.
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
The Crowd Says (31) | Page 2 of Comments
Have Your Say
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Other Sports articles
- Nadal, Serena affirm favouritism for French Open (15)
- Can boxing great Pacquiao return to his former self? (14)
- Durant is a superhero, but not super enough (13)
- Has sports journalism lost its way? (12)
- Will Mayweather vs Pacquiao happen? (11)
- Cheap Seats Podcast: episode four (9)
- ‘Wild’ Will willing: Tomlinson targets American assault (8)
- Nadal and Djokovic chasing Federer (12)
- Aussie Power chasing history at Indy 500
- 2013 French Open: men’s matches to watch out for (5)
- James Te Huna’s back on track for UFC 160
- Five things you’ll see at UFC 160
- UFC 160: Velasquez vs. Bigfoot II – analysis and prediction
- Will the real Bernard please stand up (9)
- 2013 French Open: men’s matches to watch out for (5)
- James Te Huna’s back on track for UFC 160 (0)
- Five things you’ll see at UFC 160 (1)
- UFC 160: Velasquez vs. Bigfoot II – analysis and prediction (0)
- Will the real Bernard please stand up (9)
- UFC 160: Junior Dos Santos vs Mark Hunt – analysis and prediction (2)
- Garcia’s racial comments alude to broader issues (3)
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Betfair, Horse Racing, Peter V'Landys

April 24th 2012 @ 1:39pm
David said | April 24th 2012 @ 1:39pm | Report comment
Very interesting reading there George. Being one of those punters that will all but abandon horse racing betting if Betfair were to withdraw from Aussie Racing, I certainly hope that they can continue on as before with maybe a small adjustment to the commission structure being acceptable to me.
All parties need to pay their fare share lest we see the industry we love go the way of UK & USA, that is ‘down the dunny’. But to tax competitors out the door is unfair, yet the High Court contends that is not the case here & Betfair appear to have agreed with that during proceedings – I hope all parties are right…
July 30th 2012 @ 5:22pm
Guy Pounder said | July 30th 2012 @ 5:22pm | Report comment
Quote “As Matt Tripp correctly pointed out, “the emergence of corporate bookmakers has been a wonderful shot in the arm for punters” as they have a choice now”
Funniest thing I have ever read, sportsbet just rejected a $10 bet at odds of $9. At least Tabcorp will take a bet.
For racing use Tabcorp and sports use pinnaclesports.com.
All corporates in Australia are an absolute disgrace with Tatts being just about as bad as kicking punters as sportsbet.
Shame Matt Shaaaaaame.
July 31st 2012 @ 2:11pm
The Judge said | July 31st 2012 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
Add to Sportsbet, Sportingbet, Centrebet and IAS. If you don’t mind a bet and have a decent sized win, they shut you down pretty quickly. I’ve been, or have had friends who have been shut down by all these corporates when having a bet on the dogs, and having a decent winning night. Guy, I agree at least when the tab starts scaling you back they still let you on to win $2000-$3000!
March 4th 2013 @ 11:21am
George said | March 4th 2013 @ 11:21am | Report comment
How’s this going Scott? Has Betfair survived? Is NSW racing less viable? With respect your opinion was as biased then as it is wrong now. My understanding of the Betfair model was obviously better than yours. I also factored in the likely behaviour of Betfair Australia and the response by BF punters and layers, which was never going to collapse on the back of a 1.5% impost.