Does the Moral Objection Against Online Gambling have Merit?

The Contradictions in the U.S. Market

The U.S. market is of particular interest, primarily because it is full of contradictions in terms of their treatment of gambling as a whole. While many local and state authorities continue to oppose the legalisation of virtual gambling on moral grounds, for example, some are more than happy to allow the construction of bricks-and-mortar casinos within their boundaries. This suggests that so-called moral objections are little more than red herrings, which mask the influence that prominent, land-based casino owners yield over government representatives in North America.

Although this may not be the case everywhere, it does question the reasons offered by authorities when opposing online gambling. It also ignores the efforts made by iGaming brands in the UK to help identify potential gambling addicts and prevent them from being immersed by  online platforms. In collaboration with public sector organisations such as GambleAware, brands are striving to eradicate problem gambling and present a united front against the hidden issues that can be found online.

This casts the online gambling market in a whole new light, while highlighting that it is more than possible for virtual operators to thrive while doing their bit to oppose and ultimately eradicate problem gaming. Such an outlook also deconstructs the idea that there is some form of profound moral objection to online gambling, as it is possible to apply stringent regulations to the virtual marketplace while also tackling potential issues surrounding fairness, competitive pricing and addiction.

 

The Last Word: Will Operators Ever Breakdown the Moral Objections to Online Gambling?

While there are numerous observations and contradictions that surround the so-called moral objections to online gambling, it has been exceptionally difficult for operators to successfully challenge these claims and break them down. In this respect, a more pertinent question is whether or not online operators will ever be able to achieve this aim, particularly with authorities in the U.S. and other areas of the world seemingly so steadfast in their opposition to the virtual marketplace?

We believe that the answer will ultimately be yes, particularly if offline casino revenues dwindle while the online market becomes increasingly dominant (it accounted for an impressive 33% of the overall UK industry in 2016). This will undermine the influence of land-based casino owners, while also making it harder for authorities to ignore the huge tax and monetisation benefits associated with online gambling.

While online gambling represents huge business in the UK and Europe, it continues to struggle in its attempts to make an impact in other markets across the globe.

 

Uruguay is the latest nation to approve laws that make online casino games illegal, while failing to distinguish between games of skill and those of chance. With 47 states still refusing to legalise online gambling in North America too, there is continued resistance of the concept on a mass and surprisingly large scale.

 

Many authorities will use moral and social objections as a way of justifying their stance, but does this hold true or is it a smokescreen for other issues?

 

The Contradictions in the U.S. Market

 

The U.S. market is of particular interest, primarily because it is full of contradictions in terms of their treatment of gambling as a whole. While many local and state authorities continue to oppose the legalisation of virtual gambling on moral grounds, for example, some are more than happy to allow the construction of bricks-and-mortar casinos within their boundaries. This suggests that so-called moral objections are little more than red herrings, which mask the influence that prominent, land-based casino owners yield over government representatives in North America.

 

Although this may not be the case everywhere, it does question the reasons offered by authorities when opposing online gambling. It also ignores the efforts made by iGaming brands in the UK to help identify potential gambling addicts and prevent them from being immersed by  online platforms. In collaboration with public sector organisations such as GambleAware, brands are striving to eradicate problem gambling and present a united front against the hidden issues that can be found online.

 

This casts the online gambling market in a whole new light, while highlighting that it is more than possible for virtual operators to thrive while doing their bit to oppose and ultimately eradicate problem gaming. Such an outlook also deconstructs the idea that there is some form of profound moral objection to online gambling, as it is possible to apply stringent regulations to the virtual marketplace while also tackling potential issues surrounding fairness, competitive pricing and addiction.

 

The Last Word: Will Operators Ever Breakdown the Moral Objections to Online Gambling?

 

While there are numerous observations and contradictions that surround the so-called moral objections to online gambling, it has been exceptionally difficult for operators to successfully challenge these claims and break them down. In this respect, a more pertinent question is whether or not online operators will ever be able to achieve this aim, particularly with authorities in the U.S. and other areas of the world seemingly so steadfast in their opposition to the virtual marketplace?

 

We believe that the answer will ultimately be yes, particularly if offline casino revenues dwindle while the online market becomes increasingly dominant (it accounted for an impressive 33% of the overall UK industry in 2016). This will undermine the influence of land-based casino owners, while also making it harder for authorities to ignore the huge tax and monetisation benefits associated with online gambling.
Add comment

Security code
Refresh

Best online casinos

Royal PandaRoyal Panda
Vera&JohnVera&John