Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
A daily podcast delving into the biggest stories of the day throughout the sports betting and igaming sector.
Fernando Noodt (00:05.641)
Dana White, the founder of the UFC, has written to President Trump urging him to repeal the gambling the loss deduction limits introduced under the one big beautiful bill act, also known as the OB-BBA. White becomes the highest profile Trump ally to publicly challenge the policy, which since January the 1st has capped gambling loss deductions at 90%, triggering frustration among US bidders and mounting concern.
across the gambling industry. The intervention echoes the lobbying position of US Sportsbook Sunday American Gaming Association, the AGA, but is Trump prepared to reverse course on the most controversial consumer measure impacting America's gambling sector? We'll have to hashtag wait and see or wait and listen to another episode of iGamingDaily. Welcome everyone, I'm Fernando Nott.
Media Manager for SVC and your host for today's episode where I'm joined by the great Justin Byers, Business Journalist for SVC Americas. Justin, how are you today?
Justin Byers (01:13.132)
I can't complain one bit excited for this discussion on what seems to be a hot topic right now. It's percolating through social media and it's going to percolate through this podcast.
Fernando Noodt (01:24.041)
Yeah, we're going to be sparring one on one for this episode. So, yeah, I feel like it's appropriate for this UFC story. But first, let me thank Optimo, the creator of Positionsless Marketing and number one player engagement solution for iGaming and sports betting operators for supporting iGaming daily. But Justin, so yeah, a lot of discussions. Of course, Trump is a very controversial figure.
I mean, he's the president of the United States, so he's like in the brightest spotlight there is in the world probably, but given his personality, he's even more in the spotlight and all his decisions are usually very thoroughly scrutinized and it's very curious to see an ally of his administration, which like Dana White challenging his policies.
Dana, in this case, has come to the rescue, but what is the context of his letter and his demands to President Trump on the Gambling Laws repeal?
Justin Byers (02:31.97)
Yeah, the root at this issue, this matter is taxes. What Dana White wants out of Trump is he wants Trump to reverse a rule, a provision that was included in the OB BBBA last year. Now that provision mandates that gamblers deduct 90 % of their winnings in a given year. The old rule used to be 100%.
Now, with 90, that means that a gambler could end up owing more taxes than they actually win. So that puts a lot of professional gamblers or or just big time gamblers in that really, really tough spot, because you might end up paying the government more than you actually pocketed yourself.
Fernando Noodt (03:20.445)
Yeah, I bet that's a situation nobody wants to be in. And that can probably turn people to stop engaging with the regulated sports betting platforms and of course the ever threatening shadow of illegal gambling and unregulated gambling searches once again. But like I said, Dana White is a
one of the biggest allies for Trump in the show business and entertainment business is a very strong public figure in the US with the UFC having gained so much relevance over the last few years. with him being an outspoken ally of Trump, do you think he'll listen to this request by the UFC or by Dana White himself?
Justin Byers (04:16.952)
That's an interesting question because we've seen Trump in the past take the advice of some of his, I would even say constituents, some of his buddies. And so at this point, this problem.
Because there has been such an outcry previously before even Dana White wrote this letter, there was a lot of discourse amongst poker players, amongst pro sports bettors, and even amongst legislators. There was some pushback against this. But now that Trump has someone close to him in his ear about this issue, this could turn into a real thing with some real momentum. And like you mentioned earlier,
This will be an important topic of discussion moving forward because of the illegal market that's at play. And in the letter, Data White directly mentions that if this is a thing that continues to go on, that betters might gravitate towards illegal wagering.
Fernando Noodt (05:13.983)
Yeah, and I think I feel like Trump comes from a very business heavy background. Of course, he was a businessman. He was an entrepreneur. He was working in the corporate side of the world where I think camaraderie or comradeship is very strong. So I'm really curious to see if that translates to
policymaking now with him being the president of the United States and having this request form this very relevant body like the UFC, this very big organization like the UFC. But now let's go back a little bit. Let's reflect back. So why did the Trump administration impose a cap on gambling loss deductions at 90 % in the first place as part of the OBV-
which is the one big beautiful bill act in case someone wasn't paying attention.
Justin Byers (06:14.624)
It's funny because I wonder if they realize the mouthful that it takes to get the OB BBA out when they wrote the bill, especially when all this all the media tries to cover it. But it's it's interesting that, of course, when it comes to taxes, taxes.
Fernando Noodt (06:22.963)
Yeah.
Justin Byers (06:33.228)
want revenue and this is exactly what that is. The only reason I think this was a thing is because of the additional revenue that was out there. I know there was a estimate from a joint committee.
that projects revenue roughly reaching a billion dollars over an eight year period from this provision, which equates to just under $140 million a year in additional tax revenue just from this provision. Now that might seem like a lot of money, but in the grand scheme of things, if you're looking at the vastness of America and the vastness of business America does, that seems like a little
drop in a bucket and I think that's gonna be a topic of discussion when it comes to whether this is really worth the trouble or the headache and the backlash.
Fernando Noodt (07:28.553)
Yeah, absolutely. We have to wait and see for that hashtag wait and see. But what is the current relationship between the DJT and US gambling in light of the Trump's family support for prediction market between DJT? mean, of course, Donald Trump.
and US gambling, their relationship in light of his family support for prediction markets. Of course, we've seen them getting involved with that, even though it's a very, it's like we're walking on thin ice with prediction markets for now. Regulation is very unclear whether they are a financial element, whether they are gambling. So they have been very involved, but...
with that, so the president's family. So what's the relationship between him, in this case Donald Trump himself, and US Gambling considering this and the implementation of this tax provision?
Justin Byers (08:34.146)
Yeah, it's ironic we're talking about this almost exactly eight years to the date of the overturning of Pasqua being a monumental moment in American history and American regulated gaming history. And I think we're sort of at landmark moments right now when it comes to prediction markets and that's shaping the relationship between the government and the regulated industry. Right now we've seen a lot of...
user friendly positioning from the justice department and from the US government in general when it comes to approaching verticals like prediction markets like you mentioned and I think that's a reflection of the relationship that's going on right now with regulated gaming. think the justice department and the government as a whole is kind of intertwining themselves a little bit deeper into gaming now especially as it starts to grow and
as more states are sort of maturing in their markets. And so it's an interesting spot that the government's in, but it seems like they're gonna have their hand deep in this thing no matter what. And so I think there's a relationship there that's, it's not necessarily something that's combative, but it could be something that has a little bit more pushback now that we've got this, but it has been collaborative over the past year and a half, it seems.
Fernando Noodt (09:59.05)
And of course, we've seen Trump intervening several different things. He has a very particular style of running office. And in this case, we are dealing with the OB-BBA. OB-BBA, yeah, that's it. And it's articles which were passed by Congress, right? So the legislative branch of government. But can Trump simply intervene somehow?
and change provisions at his command at this point.
Justin Byers (10:31.222)
It's funny you asked me that because if you ask Trump that he'll say yes, no matter what, in my opinion. And there is a little bit of validity to that, but like everything in government, in any market, there's a process for everything. And with this, like you said, this went through a lot of vetting.
for House and Senate members. And it's gonna have to do the same if there's gonna be a change. But there are other avenues for Trump to kind of intervene on this. And that's through an executive order. That's also through pushing other legislators.
other supporters of his to to take action when it comes to to bills to try to get this thing reversed if he decides to do that. So it's it's not necessarily a quick fix. There will be some time in between this being.
a topic of discussion and things actually changing. And it's funny because the timing is interesting. We're in May here and legislative sessions across the country. They're either right in the middle of things or dwindling down depending on the market or in some cases they'll continue to go on no matter what the timeline is. So when it comes to this, there's only certain avenues that Trump could take at this point, but I'm sure no
knowing that what we know now and what we've seen in the past, if he does decide to make a change, he's going to be aggressive in his approach.
Fernando Noodt (12:08.029)
And now it's time for the horn to sound, to ring. Does the horns ring? I don't think that's correct word, but it's time for a very quick ad break. We're going to do right now, but we will be right back with more iGaming Daily to continue discussing the backlash of the OBBBA and the UFC's request for a change in the United States. We'll be right
AD Break
Fernando Noodt (12:58.021)
And we're back for round two of this episode on the UFC, the OB-BBA, Donald Trump, US betting and everything related. Of course, you'll find all of these on iGaming Daily, but also on SBC America. So make sure you are subscribed to SBC America's newsletter and all other SBC media newsletters to keep up to date with this story and all other stories in the global gambling industry. But now, Justin.
Let's go back to the specific story that we're covering. So Washington is of course the land of lobbying. A lot of conversations happen there, a lot of like probably the world's fate is discussed by this lobbyist in Washington. in this case, of course, we're discussing a much more niche thing, which is the gambling industry in the United States.
How big a win would this be for the US sportsbook and iGaming sector to simply carry favor with Donald Trump?
Justin Byers (14:05.578)
Absolutely huge and I think what it signals is that the regulated gambling industry in the US means something
That means it carries weight. means it impacts the bottom line of what America corporations and framework are operating on. And so I think it would be a huge, huge moment in the history of U.S. gaming if this were to change just because of the gravity of it and also where it reaches. Like we're talking about the president of the United States, the leader of the free world getting his hands directly involved.
in a gambling related issue instead of it being left to justices or a committee or a chamber. Like this is something that can carry a lot of weight moving forward. And I know we've only got two years left in this current administration, this Trump administration. So if there were some moves to be made, they would have to be made quickly because you just don't know what you're going to get moving forward, whoever takes over in the next presidency.
If they're going to do something, this is the good time to do it because time is dwindling and it's doing quickly.
Fernando Noodt (15:22.844)
And course the UFC has a very strong, a very huge fan base, not only in the US balls, but also worldwide. And I'm not a big UFC fan myself. I do like contact sports, but I'm not really into UFC. But even me and my friends are already planning to have a gathering and watch UFC 250 at the White House, which is a proposed event for
Trump's 80th birthday. So do you think this huge event and I'm putting myself as an example to illustrate how big this event is probably going to be and it's actually proposed for Trump's 80th birthday and of course the anniversary of the US independence and all that. But do you think this huge event
carries anyway in a decision that the Trump administration may have.
Justin Byers (16:21.006)
without question. They've been talking about this UFC 250 event for what it seems like two years now.
And I know all the logistical planning and all the investment that's taking place to make this happen. And for the UFC to work in line with the government on this to make this happen, when it comes to it being an entertainment event, instead of just a political event is an indication of how close this relationship is between the UFC, Dana White and the president. And it will carry weight because this is a request that's coming from the leader of the UFC.
And that relationship between Dana White and Trump has been strong, and it's been strong since Trump announced his candidacy. And right now what I think is if that event were taking place, I'm not quite sure if Dana White would have the confidence to send Trump this letter because they know
how they work together and they know how to push each other's buttons it seems and so I think this this event might be the catalyst for all of this.
Fernando Noodt (17:31.269)
Yeah, absolutely. think the relevance and the size of the impact it will have on the on as an actual landmark event for sports like people will probably remember that one time where the UFC was hosted at the White House, which is a crazy thing to say. But it's going to happen because it's a crazy world we live in. And it's definitely going to have some weight in this decision.
But speaking of Wade, let's turn to the AGA, the American Gambling Association. So do you think it has, has it lost its authority on these matters and its lobbying capacity considering all we're discussing, like we're talking about Dana White interceding for this gambling tax instead of the AGA? Do you think they have been relegated somehow?
Justin Byers (18:27.214)
I've been covering the AGA for a little bit now and knowing what I know and knowing what I've reported on in the past, I think they have lost a little bit of their authority.
And I think that's something the industry as a whole is kind of watching and seeing themselves. And I think the indication is that we're seeing a whole lot of other trade groups pop up and a lot of other trade groups that go against exactly what the AGA stands for. And I think we've also seen operators notice that as well. And that's correlated to operators leaving the AGA themselves, like bet 365.
and DraftKings because of their entry into prediction markets. And that's something the AJA is wholeheartedly against the proliferation of those offerings. And so when it comes to this, I think the AJA has lost a little bit of momentum. Now, are they still an important voice in gaming and kind of still shape the infrastructure? Yes. Will that continue? Without question.
but have they lost a little bit of steam yet? So now I think that's not necessarily just their fault. I think that's the nature of the business right now because it is diversifying and there are more options and the market is maturing. And I think with anything, any sector that's gonna happen. Now, will the AGA respond in a right way?
come up with ways to reengage. I hope so. But right now I do think there's a little bit of authority gap.
Fernando Noodt (20:10.051)
Yeah, absolutely. think figures like the AGA are very much necessary in the gambling industry to be representative of the segment and intercede for the industry's interests ahead of or in front of regulations or measures like the one we're seeing in the United States. But speaking of figures of authority, Dana White has come up
like this, this, Paladin for, for, for, for the gambling industry, even if he, he, wasn't intending that that's how it looks. So do you think if he succeeds in this request to president Trump, will he carry an authority role in us gambling in some capacity? because he does seem to care about the sector, its reputation and its wellbeing. So do you think he, could,
become a more present advocate for the gambling industry.
Justin Byers (21:09.198)
It's funny because the UFC has always had a bending angle towards it. It's one of those sports. Of course, the UFC headquarters is in Las Vegas.
It's one of the biggest organizations that pulls into that gambling realm. And so when it comes to Dana White in the UFC, if you look at the letter, and it's available at SBC and several articles, if you look at that letter,
Dana White does mention how important the gambling industry is for the UFC and what it means for the UFC's bottom line. And I think because of that recognition, Dana White will continue to push what he wants to push when it comes to commercial gaming. And it seems to be that what he said in the past is having a little bit of attention. It's drawing.
the attention of key stakeholders in gaming and casual UFC fans, even like myself, that he's taking this approach to ensuring the UFC and gambling are working hand in hand in a comprehensive and fair manner. And it's funny because...
Dana White has also been an advocate for proper regulated gaming. There's been several instances over the past year, year and a half, two years, where Dana White stepped in directly when a gambling issue has risen with the UFC athlete or UFC event.
Justin Byers (22:50.868)
An example of that is, I want to say maybe one or two UFC events ago, there was a fight that had some irregular betting activity. Dana White pulls the fight from the card to protect the integrity of the organization and competition.
You don't see a lot of leaders of sports organizations or bodies take those steps in recognizing the impact of gambling on their body or their sport. And the fact that Dana White feels comfortable in doing that just shows you that tie between the UFC, white, and the gambling industry.
Fernando Noodt (23:30.183)
Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely agree with that. I mean, some people don't even consider boxing a sport because of that factor of the manipulation and the judges and all that. But speaking of judges, this is the end of this bout. I think by unanimous decision, Justin Byers has won this one, even though it was a collaborative effort. We have Ania McDonnell on our corner. So thank you very much. To our listeners, make sure you are subscribed to SPC Media Newsletters, especially SPC Americas, if you want to.
read more from Justin and more about this story in particular we will continue to monitor what Dana White brings to the table with his relationship with Donald Trump if the President of the United States listens to him and his letter about the OBBA and yeah will surely be hashtag wait and see waiting and seeing for this
developments, but thank you very much, Justin. Thank you very much in A.M. for producing this episode. I'm Fernando Nott and to our listeners out there, we'll see you in the next one. Goodbye.