Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
A daily podcast delving into the biggest stories of the day throughout the sports betting and igaming sector.
speaker-0 (00:00.206)
Why do we need to consult?
speaker-1 (00:01.358)
I know, who do we need to consult in here?
speaker-0 (00:03.392)
with. If you don't have a license here you shouldn't be able to advertise here. Evolution has reached a £4.75 million settlement with the UK gambling commission following a lengthy process after its products were identified on multiple unlicensed websites.
speaker-1 (00:08.578)
Dim.
speaker-0 (00:25.898)
It ends a long period of uncertainty for the supplier, whose CEO said, Today we dissect the details of the settlement and ask how suppliers can police their products against unlicensed operators. Welcome back to iGaming Daily, supported by Optimove, the creator of positionless marketing and the number one player engagement solution for sports betting and iGaming operators.
I'm Charlie Horner and joining me today to discuss all of this and more is iGaming expert editor Joe Streeter. Joe, how are you doing?
speaker-1 (01:05.325)
So you know the answer that question I'm very somber we're all very somber England they're out the World Cup the dream is over again, but yeah was just hell of a run. I think we all enjoyed it. But yeah, I hope you're okay I know you're putting on a brave face, but struggling or so but yeah a really big story actually to to cover today to distract us from the doom and gloom of another Final Four exit and
We do have the excitement of a bronze final, so I guess there's that to look forward to.
speaker-0 (01:37.784)
Well, I for one, I'm really looking forward to talking about Evolution's settlement with the gambling commission. So with that, Joe, just remind us of the details of this story. Why is Evolution settling with the gambling commission and what does it all relate back to?
speaker-1 (01:53.164)
Yeah, right. Okay, so I think firstly, it's important to say that a £4.75 million settlement on the surface, you know, on initial reaction, seems like a bad outcome for evolution. I don't actually think it is. It's obviously not amazing, but I don't think it's a it's the worst outcome by any means for evolution.
And I think that was reflected yesterday in their share prices, you know, as this kind of story broke and as this, this development came to light, you know, we finally got some clarity because the original license review and I think that's an important, you know, framing of it was a license review. So the obvious worst outcome would have been a license revocation. that what license
speaker-0 (02:46.222)
suspension or revocation.
speaker-1 (02:48.302)
was in December 2024. So this has been lingering over evolution for a long time. And I think, you know, if you listen to any of Martin Carlson's financials, where, you know, where does the investor cause on the financials, regular questions put to him by investors and by stakeholders, shareholders on, on this, you know, on when are we going to get some clarity on this review? So it's been lingering for a long time.
And we do finally now have clarity and clarity in the form of a 4.75 million settlement with the UK gambling commission. it was quite simply, it was about the prevalence of evolution games, evolution titles being supplied to unlicensed operators that are targeting the black market. Yeah, there were certain conditions quite often
Suppliers don't face scrutiny for this type of thing Obviously evolution one of the biggest suppliers. I think it kind of You know was was made when I think around 3 % of their total revenues Were cited as coming from the UK. I think that played a role in prompting it But yeah evolution by all accounts. They acted with haste to Move to kind of fix this fix this issue
Some of their actions were praised by the GC. They were not glowing but they were accepting that evolution had taken steps to remedy these issues. We're going to talk about some of those strategies that evolution is undertaking as well now to ensure that this type of thing doesn't happen again.
Yeah, and yeah, a 4.75 mil settlement. So evolution remains in the UK.
speaker-0 (04:55.502)
think that's an important distinction to make is that following the settlement the license review is that process is finished? Does it put the issue to bed around evolutions licensing in the UK? they clear now to continue supplying its games to licensed and regulated operators?
speaker-1 (05:12.35)
I'm reading a lot of the same statements you are. think that's the impression you get, right? That's the impression I get. I think that is the case, which will be very welcome news for evolution. think when this story broke back at the end of 2024, was cited that around 3 % of their revenues come from the UK. It doesn't seem like a whole lot, but the UK's a big market. There's lots of instability around Europe and around global markets at the moment.
And the UK is a market that is a valuable one. So that will be the big takeaway that evolution remains in the UK for sure.
speaker-0 (05:54.722)
Yeah, just to take a quick step back and just to outline exactly what happened here. So, Evolution Content was found on two operators across six websites. Those websites didn't have a license in the UK. I think the commercial agreements with those operators was terminated after it was found and identified.
Yeah, Evolution said that there's no broader pattern of unlicensed access to Evolution content in the UK that has been identified across that 18-month review. Okay, let's move on because we've noted that Evolution is making sure that this sort of situation doesn't happen again in the UK or other regulated markets. But what does that process actually look like? I'm intrigued to know how a supplier can actually police.
or ensure that their content isn't being used by unlicensed operators in any given market. So what is the evolution strategy here to make sure that its products aren't used by illegal operators?
speaker-1 (06:59.672)
Yeah, well Charlie, can give you a peek under the bonnet, but in terms of, you know, the full technical nitty gritty, I'm so intrigued myself because it's really interesting how you actually go about this and how you ensure this happens, but it's largely down to what they're calling ring fencing and we've seen the implementation of this ring fencing kind of take effect in recent evolution results since this was discovered. They've been s***
stricter with their ring fencing to ensure that games don't end up on the black market. it's essentially it's geo blocking just technical technical controls and geo blocking that ensure their games aren't available in certain jurisdictions with certain operators. Quite the approach and you know it has cost them in some areas but I think they will they will say that is a
price that is very much worth paying. You know the quotes from Carlson yesterday, you know we always want to do what is right and it is not acceptable that six unlicensed sites offered evolution content in the regulated UK market. We do not want traffic from unlicensed operators and will always move quickly to address any such situation. Welcome, look forward to moving forward in the UK. But yeah really interesting, you know obviously evolution is a
is a giant heavyweight in the supplier game. Perhaps more attainable that they implement processes like this than it would be for smaller suppliers. you know, I kind of like the idea that Evolution is something of a guinea pig for these types of controls for suppliers to ensure that their games end up in the right place. Because I do think there is, and now we're going to come onto it, I do think there is responsibility on suppliers.
To ensure that their games especially when they're making such strong titles don't end up on with unlicensed sites The only thing I would add there the only caveat I would add is There is still a recurring issue an issue that does linger with kind of game cloning and I know we've you know, we've spoken to is it game check? We've spoken to game check in the past about the things they're implementing and credit to them around
speaker-1 (09:26.466)
how you can kind of add legitimacy to games and then you know players know that when they're rather you know Wizard of Oz or Rainbow Riches or whatever they are playing the legitimate game they're not playing a rigged game or a cloned game that is an issue that you know is is not going to be combated by ring fencing because you know we've seen the unlicensed market take quite aggressive approaches to cloning games but
Yeah, really, really interesting approach and one that I hope we see mirrored from other suppliers. What do you think?
speaker-0 (10:03.544)
Yeah, I'm... I also agree. I think that it's good that suppliers can take action to ensure that their games aren't being used in unlicensed markets. I mean, not just from a brand protection point of view, like you don't want your brand to be associated with stories like that, but also because you want your games to be associated with an environment where players are protected, that there are limits, where there are guardrails in place to...
to ensure that if you get into a problem with your gambling habits that you aren't going to be exposed by playing supplier X's games or supplier Y's games because they are within that regulated framework. Joe, you said there that the supplier does have a responsibility to ensure that its products aren't being used in the black market. To what extent is that true versus, you know, where does the regulator come in?
Where does the operator themselves come in? What's the position of priority in terms of who takes on that responsibility? Do you think it is solely on the supplier?
speaker-1 (11:12.802)
Yeah, this is the first question on the part that is a little bit subjective. Yeah, I think it's a tricky one. I think it's a tricky one. I think when we see measures that can be taken, when we see the toolbox that can be implemented by companies like Evolution, it empowers, you know, if suppliers are empowered to ensure that their games don't end up on the black market, then
I think some of the responsibility should certainly be with them. You know, we are all stakeholders in this industry and suppliers are no different. I do think, yeah, for sure, you if you want to have commercially viable collaborations with the biggest operators, the biggest regulated operators, you can't then go and agree deals with operators that are.
acting in an immoral way or promoting games in an immoral way, know, whether that's through, you know, streamers or you have to do things the right way, right? I mean, you you kind of are probably a little bit closer with some suppliers in terms of conversations and stuff like that, more meetings with suppliers. Yeah, obviously we're talking about evolution here, who are an absolute heavyweight.
and they just agreed a 4.75 mil settlement which kind of underpins the stature of the player that we're dealing with here. There will be suppliers that they don't have that level of stature, that level of size. Does that onus of responsibility, when they're talking about responsibility for their games not ending up on the black market, will it shift a little bit or how do you feel about that?
speaker-0 (13:00.716)
certainly think there'll be more pressure on the commercial side of those companies to make sure that those games aren't being exposed to the black market. I also think that there's an element of, when I talk to people that they want greater collaboration and communication, particularly with regulators. And I think this settlement or this review process with the gambling commission, while of course you don't want to feel the wrath of a regulator or to go through a process like this,
I think it might open up conversations to ensure that if a situation like this arose again, then it might be a bit more, there might be a collaborative process and that might lead to a little bit more of a fruitful outcome for all involved. But Joe, let's take a quick break.
speaker-1 (13:54.744)
Yeah, you know, it's interesting as well that the kind of I'd say this but the regulations need to play ball a little bit as well, right and obviously You know, we know regulations are there as safeguards but you know I've spoken to suppliers before and they've said much smaller suppliers than evolution But they've said like, you know, the types of things we want to put in our games that make them in their eyes fun You know still to be enjoyed in a responsible way, but they make them fun and make them
They do add an extra level of volatility that some players want. The regulations don't allow that. The regulations in the UK and in other markets. saw the stake limits were raised in Germany, right, after a long time. But sometimes the regulations are so limiting on games and so crippling to handicapping slots that there are slots suppliers that they want to add a level of excitement to their game.
kind of regulations don't allow that and you will end up, you know, we talk about driving players from the, to the black market all the time, you might end up driving suppliers to the, to the unlicensed market.
speaker-0 (15:03.05)
Well, there's always a balance to be struck in terms of regulation and yeah, we'll continue to monitor that going forward. But Joe, we've spoken a lot about unlicensed operators. We'll take a quick break and then we'll talk a little bit about a new consultation to potentially ban.
and those kind of operators from UK sport. Learn how OptiMove's positionless marketing is changing how iGaming teams operate. Discover how operators are using OptiMove's positionless marketing platform to launch personalised CRM campaigns, dynamically change casino lobbies and bet slips and create engaging game-ified experiences. Learn more at OptiMove.com. Welcome back to iGaming Daily. Now the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has opened a consultation on banning...
unlicensed operators from sponsoring UK sports associations and clubs and leagues and other bodies. Joe, could you provide us the detail on this story? What's what is the consultation about?
speaker-1 (16:02.326)
Yeah, Charlie, I'm a bit tired of this story, I'll be honest. In a weird way, I'm a bit tired because, you know, I had to kind of refresh and check what was going on here because this consultation I thought was started in January or February, February, it wasn't, they were talking about a consultation in February and now we've started the conversation. If I could, you know...
throw all decorum out the window and speak with, be candid with you. Just crack on, just get it done. I think Entain has raised that point in a far more articulate way than me, but just get on with it because all the while you're not getting on with it and you're not implementing this ban. And credit, listen, they are getting on with it now. The consultation has started, but all the while you're not implementing this ban.
It's fairly obvious to everyone, right? Unlicensed. Especially while you've got the front of shirt is banned for all gambling operators and you're coming down on the regulated industry in a really harsh way in terms of marketing. We've seen some bizarre, you know, adverts being banned that you just leave you baffled for another episode, I'm sure. But all the while you're coming down on the regulatory hammer on the regulated industry in a really tough way.
by allowing unlicensed operators to partner with UK sports institutions. You were just leaving so many vulnerable and you're leaving such an exposure to the black market. And, you know, we kind of seen that. think there'll be real angst and just disappointment at the time this has taken, because in that time Everton have agreed
a sleeve sponsorship with Steak. That's a big club. That's a big unlicensed brand continuing to get exposure when it shouldn't. This should have been implemented already and I appreciate government bureaucracy goes beyond anything I could ever. Is it as much easier than me just saying on a podcast that we should, but this is so obvious. It's such an open goal, pardon the pun, that it should have been done by now.
speaker-0 (18:16.14)
Yeah, no, it's an easy win and I would actually go perhaps a step further Joe and say Why do we need to consult? Yeah with if you don't have a license here, you shouldn't be able to advertise here would be my stance of course those brands particularly who were adorned in the front of shirt sponsors in the Premier League for the in the
speaker-1 (18:23.054)
I know, who do we need to consult in here?
speaker-0 (18:42.86)
Majority of those cases, they weren't really targeting UK players. They're thinking more globally.
speaker-1 (18:47.362)
Yeah, the Premier League is a global product, right? It's a valid point, but...
speaker-0 (18:51.264)
But they're still being exposed to UK audiences. I'm not entirely sure why it's A, taken so long and B, why we need to consult at all. What's the industry reaction been to this?
speaker-1 (19:08.404)
It's been a strong reaction from and you know, and Tain is really fought on the front for. And credit to them as well. I will say, you know, another credit to Entain. I think I might raise the other day, know, they used one of their kind of advertising assets to raise education, raise education around the black market and the risks of the black market. And I think that speaks to the importance of, you know, banning
speaker-0 (19:13.612)
they've really positioned themselves.
speaker-1 (19:37.454)
unlicensed operators from Premier League sponsors and I talk about the Premier League specifically from the Premier League Sponsorships because the Premier League adds legitimacy to anything, you know, if you see a brand on the perimeter boards of a Premier League football match It adds a level of legitimacy to that brand and and you know offshore operators are no different But yeah and Tain has called for faster action they've called for the
the GC and the government to follow the lead of the FCA when it come to unlicensed crypto firms sponsoring big sports clubs they've also called for the Premier League Premier League clubs, I think they wrote a letter to Richard Masters to implement a voluntary ban on unlicensed sponsorship in the same way they have with the front of shirt ban on gambling
That appears unlikely to me now because obviously we've seen deals agreed, Or at least a single deal with Everton. So yeah, guess that avenue is less likely. yeah, continuing to fight the fight on the front foot and saying and getting somewhere slowly but surely getting somewhere. Yeah, a tricky one.
speaker-0 (20:55.328)
Yeah, let's bring things towards a close Joe and just take a look at the Premier League because we know that the voluntary ban is in effect now and a lot of clubs had front of shirt gambling partners. So how were clubs progressing in terms of replacing those front of shirt sponsorships? We've mentioned Everton and they've sort of got a stake on the sleeve. But in terms of those front of shirt partnerships, what are we seeing in terms of the
the brands replacing in China. know that there's a couple of clubs who haven't actually managed to replace those gambling partners.
speaker-1 (21:26.604)
Great questions. Great questions.
speaker-1 (21:34.766)
clubs that are born before one, right? They've replaced it with a giant Vitality
speaker-0 (21:38.646)
Vitality, yeah. Sunderland and Nottingham Forest, as of yet, have not agreed or have not announced that they've agreed a new front of shirt partner at all. By the way, it's... on sale. Yeah. The away kits are on sale, home shirts will be going on sale later this month and there's no sponsor.
speaker-1 (21:58.102)
It's a new norm though, isn't it? I feel like it never happened five, six, seven years ago. But now you regularly get the shirt going on sale without a sponsor to start. And then eventually they will hope to find a sponsor, I guess. Yeah, it's underlined in Europe as well. So you would hope that added a bit of value, but...
speaker-0 (22:19.17)
And you even talk about Bournemouth there with their Vitality logo. They've also agreed to deal with Mr. Q, the casino brand. I believe they're on the sleeve as well. you know, they're replacing a gambling brand from their front of shirt with Vitality and then maybe making up the shortfall. I don't know if there is a shortfall, but perhaps taking that deal to make up the gap because we know that those brands paid lucrative sums.
speaker-1 (22:48.002)
Interesting. We are seeing that sleeve asset being used. We're also seeing that training wear asset be used. I just wonder not to be speculative. We know the front of shirt ban is voluntary. It's kind of self-implemented action. If we see the proliferation of sleeves in the Premier League with betting brands, is a Burnham-led government going to take action amidst lobbying or...?
You know, you do wonder that the prevalence of gambling operators is still there on the shirt somewhere, is still there, you know, as we're watching Premier League. I wonder if the flames are going to rise again, you know?
speaker-0 (23:29.614)
And those training kits that we see on social media every single day. saw Sandro Tornali photographs. He was training as he's joined Tottenham Hotspur and you can see.
speaker-1 (23:40.13)
Tonali's not a good one either is he because of the history
speaker-0 (23:42.83)
Yeah, I mean that's a good point and it was something that some fans were quick to point out. Look Joe, we're talking more about football now which is making me feel a little bit upset. So I think we should probably wrap things up here. But thanks ever so much for joining me today, dissecting these really big stories. Thanks to Optimove for supporting the show as always. And to our listeners, thank you for tuning in to today's episode of iGaming Daily.
Come back tomorrow to keep up to date with all the latest global gambling news.
speaker-1 (24:16.878)
you