Skip to main content

Sky falling in on Tabcorp's monopoly

The Productivity Commission has recommended that Tabcorp's ownership of SkyChannel, the primary racing broadcaster, be investigated by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. This, in conjunction with recommendations that Tabcorp's retail outlet monopoly be ceased and that NSW and Queensland racing authorities get off their high horse and negotiate product fees not based on turnover, which discriminates against competitors of the TABs, are major blows to Tabcorp.


Tabcorp on notice

The Productivity Commission recommended the Federal Government refer the ownership to the ACCC.

The commission found that the "vertical integration of Tabcorp's wagering and broadcast business has potentially serious implications for competition in the wagering market".

"As the capacity for punters to view racing is a key factor of production for wagering operators that compete with Tabcorp, this arrangement may frustrate competitive access to racing broadcasts," the report said.

"Were governments to allow bookmakers to establish a retail presence, Tabcorp's ownership of Sky Channel would become even more problematic."

.
.

The Productivity Commission noted that "fair and open competition is a fundamental principle of a market economy".

Consequently, the commission said Tabcorp's retail "exclusivity arrangements represents a rare privilege" and should not be renewed.



Whether of course the Federal Government takes any notice of the Productivity Commission is another matter. They might have other things to worry about at the moment, with a possible vote of no confidence in the current Prime Minister...

If you wish to read through the official document, here's the link.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Spot-fixing - you will never, ever be able to stop it

According to this report , IPL tournaments so far have been rife with spot-fixing - that is fixing minor elements of the game - runs in a single over, number of wides bowled etc. The curious part of that article is that the Income Tax department are supposed to have found these crimes. What idiot would be stupid enough to put down 'big wad of cash handed to me by bookie' as a source of income? Backhanders for sportsmen, particularly in a celebrity- and cricket-obsessed culture like India are not rare. They could come from anything like turning up to open someone's new business (not a sponsor, but a 'friend of a friend' arrangement), to being a guest at some devoted fan's dinner party etc. The opportunities are always there, and there will always be people trying to become friends with players and their entourage - that is human nature. This form of match-fixing (and it's not really fixing a match, just a minor element of it) is very hard to prove, but also, ...

lay the field - my favourite racing strategy

Dabbling with laying the field in-running at various prices today, not just one price, but several in the same race. Got several matched in the previous race at Brighton, then this race came along at Nottingham. Such a long straight at Nottingham makes punters often over-react and think the finish line is closer than it actually is. As you can see by the number of bets matched, there was plenty of volatility in this in-play market. It's rare you'll get a complete wipe-out with one horse getting matched at all levels, but it can happen, so don't give yourself too much risk...

It's all gone Pete Tong at Betfair!

The Christmas Hurdle from Leopardstown, a good Grade 2 race during the holiday period. But now it will go into history as the race which brought Betfair down. Over £21m at odds of 29 available on Voler La Vedette in-running - that's a potential liability of over £500m. You might think that's a bit suspicious, something's fishy, especially with the horse starting at a Betfair SP of 2.96. Well, this wasn't a horse being stopped by a jockey either - the bloody horse won! Look at what was matched at 29. Split that in half and multiply by 28 for the actual liability for the layer(s). (Matched amounts always shown as double the backers' stake, never counts the layers' risk). There's no way a Betfair client would have £600m+ in their account. Maybe £20 or even £50m from the massive syndicates who regard(ed) Betfair as safer than any bank, but not £600m. So the error has to be something technical. However, rumour has it, a helpdesk reply (not gospel, natur...