Nice to see some PR from a mainstream (well, at least not gambling) site.  Check out this piece from aol on the status of intrastate poker legislation.  Note the underlying current of disdain (perhaps I’m reading something into it that’s not there, but it’s fun to imagine) the article takes when discussing that the Federal government is dragging its heels on reform measure.

Online wagering in Europe is facing a tough spot due to the opposition of many countries and its recalcitrant governments.

Although some countries, like Norway, justify the decision to ban online betting as a measure to protect citizens from themselves, this is not the key justification in Europe, as most EU countries still allow gambling through national monopolies.

So far, out of the 27 EU members, seven consider online gambling illegal, 13 allow the activity (under state regulation), and the remaining seven keep it restricted to its own monopolies or licensed companies.

Whether revenue earns protection is the cornerstone question in Europe.  For instance, there are nations like the Netherlands, where gambling winnings are taxed at 29%, while in others like Gibraltar (one of the favorite destinations for gaming companies) winnings are taxed at only 1%, and in Malta it is capped to €466,000 a year.  Some countries even guarantee further advantages in order to attract companies linked to online gambling.

So, if many EU members are concerned about their own revenue and just protect state monopolies (like Germany, where online gambling seems to be banned unless the service is under state control), while other countries hold the best options for the gaming industry, this could generate unfair competition.

On the other hand, the monopoly protection may represent a breach of the free-trade treaty by the countries that decide for their own interests, instead of protecting community guidelines.

Leighton Vaughan Williams, of the Betting Research Unit at Nottingham Business School, once stated, “The policy of many of the EU member states towards online gambling seems to be motivated more by protection of the public purse than by protection of the public,” which makes sense because the member states are not like company shareholders, and revenue or profit are not all that matters.

Though the EU is apparently facing a different problem than the USA, an interesting question recently arose in California that proves monopoly is also something to consider for Americans.

A Riverside County Tribe, called Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians, is presently concentrating its efforts for the legal regulation of online poker for Californians.  However, the move was not welcome by some San Diego county tribes, like the Viejas Band of Mission Indians, under the argument that such regulation could ruin their own business.

Cheryl Schmidt, director of the gambling group, “Stand Up for California”, declared her opinion about the Morongo proposal:

“It just seems like Morongo is willing to sacrifice the monopoly it has, so that they can be the operating entity of Internet gambling in the state to the detriment of all the other tribes.”

Indeed, monopolies can be a barrier not only in Europe but also in the USA. The pot is getting bigger and bigger and the question is not who has the best hand anymore but who will be able to take it, even with no showdown.