Eye Of The Storm

What is Eye Of The Storm?

The rejection of the Clarity Act can be viewed as a victory for gaming stakeholders in their fight against prediction markets, which are closely intertwined with the crypto world. Crypto markets have long been the second-largest category of prediction market trading, behind sports, and many crypto exchanges also now offer predictions. These include Crypto.com, Coinbase, Gemini and many others.

On 16 June, a coalition of gaming lobby groups, state associations and labour unions sent a letter to the Senate urging lawmakers to include language in the bill banning sports and casino-related contracts. Among the signatories were the American Gaming Association, the Indian Gaming Association, the Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers and the UNITE HERE unions.

“Litigation may eventually clarify the law, but this is ultimately a question of congressional intent. Congress should not wait while this nationwide expansion of gambling continues,” the letter said. “It should use crypto legislation to reaffirm a simple principle: sports betting falls outside the CFTC’s remit and cannot be offered through prediction market platforms.”

About Eye Of The Storm

With int he report Dr Matt Gaskell MBE observed that “overall exposure (including shirts, hoardings, logos, sponsorship and related marketing) during live sports programmes does not show that self-regulation has reduced exposure meaningfully”. 

Voluntary efforts have included Premier League football opting to ban front-of-shirt gambling sponsorships, as of the beginning of this current season. Although, branding remains on training kits, shirt sleeves and across stadium advertisements. 

The committee’s previous 2020 report had recommended banning gambling ads on team shirts, training kits, stadium advertising and broadcasts, although on-course advertising for horse and greyhound racing was exempt.

How to play Eye Of The Storm

In 2012, Sanum and Lao Holdings, an Aruba-based company created to hold the investors’ interests in Sanum, accused Laos of trying to force them out of the country after Savan Vegas had become successful.

They took the dispute to international arbitration, claiming Laos had violated investment treaties protecting their businesses.

The two sides reached a settlement in 2014, but that agreement also fell apart, and the casino companies renewed their claims.