Editor's note: Deeksha Malik is a final-year student at National Law Institute University, India. Her main interest areas are corporate law, arbitration, and sports law. She can be reached at dkshmalik726@gmail.com.

In 2015, while interrogating cricketer Sreesanth and others accused in the IPL match-fixing case, Justice Neena Bansal, sitting as Additional Sessions Judge, made the following observations as regards betting on cricket matches.

“Cricket as a game of skill requires hand-eye-coordination for throwing, catching and hitting. It requires microscopic levels of precision and mental alertness for batsmen to find gaps or for bowlers to produce variety of styles of deliveries’ (medium pace, fast, inswing, outswing, offspin, legspin, googly). The sport requires strategic masterminds that can select the most efficient fielding positions for piling pressure on the batsmen. Based on above description, cricket cannot be described anything, but as a game of skill.”

The debate on the issue of betting in sports has since resurfaced and gained the attention of sportspersons, media, sports bodies, policymakers, and the general public. In April 2017, the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Dipak Misra and AM Khanwilkar agreed to hear a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking an order directing the government to come up with an appropriate framework for regulating betting in sports. The arguments put forth in the PIL present various dimensions. One of these pertains to economic considerations, a submission that regulated betting would be able to generate annual revenue of Rs. 12,000 crores by bringing the earnings therefrom within the tax net. As for policy considerations, it was submitted that a proper regulation in this area would enable the government to distinguish harmless betting from activities that impair the integrity of the game such as match-fixing. Further, betting on cricket matches largely depends on the skill of the concerned players, thereby distinguishing it from pure chance-based activities.

The issue of sports betting witnesses a divided opinion till this day. This is understandable, for both sides to the issue have equally pressing arguments. Aside from its regulation being a daunting task for authorities, sports betting is susceptible to corruption and other unscrupulous activities. At the same time, it is argued that it would be better for both the game and the economy if the same is legalised.

THE MAGNITUDE OF CONSIDERATIONS

It is feared by some that the consequences of recognition and legalisation of betting could be negative, considering what happened in Australia. Australia legalised online betting in 2001, and by 2009, it found itself in a situation where betting took over the sporting landscape in a big way. The impact was clearly visible; betting was marketed extensively in public places, attracting many young potential punters. Some found the trend disturbing, for sports fans were more concerned about their personal gains than about the sport itself. It is estimated that around 500,000 Australians are on the verge of becoming “problem gamblers.”

There has been an increasing support for the other side of the debate that argues for recognition of betting as a legal activity. It is argued that criminalising betting does not prevent its happening; it merely drives the activity underground where it continues to thrive. Add to it the substantial revenues that government would be able to obtain therefrom. In fact, the Report of the Supreme Court Committee on Reforms in Cricket, also called the Lodha Committee Report, submitted that given the worldwide legal sports betting market which is worth over $400 billion, it will be in the best interest of the economy if betting is given legal recognition.

POSITION IN THE USA AND THE UK: GROWING ACCEPTANCE OF THE UK-BASED MODEL

In the USA, federal law has taken a tough stand against betting and gambling. The 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) makes it unlawful for a person to sponsor, operate, advertise, or promote betting, gambling, or wagering scheme based, directly or indirectly, on one or more competitive games in which amateur or professional athletes participate. The provision prima facie makes no distinction between betting and gambling, and it is, therefore, irrelevant for the purpose of establishing an offence under this provision whether the activity in question involves skill or not.

On the other hand, one may refer to the position in the UK, where there has been a well-developed betting market with appropriate measures to ensure that the system is not abused. The governing organisation in this regard is the UK Gambling Commission, initially set up under the 1960 Betting and Gaming Act which works in partnership with all the sporting bodies which, in turn, frame their own bye-laws to regulate betting.[1] Apart from licensing requirements, the framework provides for an information-sharing system, whereby bookies are required to report any suspicious betting activity within their knowledge to the Gambling Commission.[2] The example of the UK shows how through appropriate safeguards and implementation policy that involves various stakeholders such as the sports bodies and the booking companies, sports betting could be effectively regulated, bringing, at the same time, significant economic advantage. It does not come as a surprise that a majority of Americans have advocated for a UK-based model.

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States began dealing with the issue in the case of Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association. The State of New Jersey seeks to get the PASPA annulled, which, in turn, would facilitate state-sponsored sports betting. It is being submitted that the federal government through the aforesaid statute is violating the anti-commandeering principle of the Tenth Amendment, according to which states cannot be mandated to carry federal acts into effect. The outcome of the case would certainly have an impact on the debate, one way or the other.

POSITION IN INDIA: THE ‘GAME OF SKILL’ DEBATE

In India, the power to legislate on betting and gambling is conferred on states, since these subjects are enlisted in the State List. Nevertheless, the pre-independence legislation, namely the 1867 Public Gambling Act (Act), is still valid today, though some states have enacted their own laws pertaining to betting and gambling. Section 12 of this Act provides that it does not apply to a ‘game of skill.’ The legislation, therefore, makes a distinction between a ‘game of chance’ and a ‘game of skill.’ The term ‘game of chance’ has been explained in the case of Rex v. Fortier[3] as a game “determined entirely or in part by lot or mere luck, and in which judgment, practice, skill or adroitness has honestly no office at all or is thwarted by chance.” It has further been held in the case of State v. Gupton that any athletic game or sport is not a game of chance and instead depends on a number of factors such as skill, ability, form and practice of the participants.

At this juncture, reference must be made to the case of KR Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu, wherein it was held by the Supreme Court of India that horse racing, foot racing, boat racing, football and baseball are all games of skill. Betting on, say, a horse race entails use of evaluative skills in order to assess several factors such as speed and stamina of the horse, performance of the jockey, and the like. Similarly, the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. K Satyanarayana observed that rummy is not like a three-card game which is based substantially on chance. There is considerable amount of skill involved in memorising the cards, or in holding and discharging them, in a rummy game. The uncertainty involved in shuffling and distribution of the cards does not alter the character of the game to one based on chance.

Based on these judgments, it is reasonable to infer that betting in cricket, too, is an activity involving sufficient skill and is not based merely on chance. A person who studies the form and performance of a player, the conditions of play and the like could predict the outcome of a game with a reasonable accuracy. The mere uncertainty of the outcome should not come in the way of understanding sports betting as an activity based on skill. Considering this important factor, the government should proceed to develop an appropriate framework to regulate betting. 

A PRACTICAL POLICY FRAMEWORK

The International Cricket Council, too, has suggested that India should come up with a suitable policy framework to regulate betting.[4] Such a framework would keep a check on individuals and further help detect and prevent corrupt activities. The above-mentioned Lodha Committee Report has strongly recommended legalising cricket betting in India. The suggestion is based on the premise that while match-fixing interferes with the integrity of the game itself and is unacceptable, betting is a “general malaise” indulged by different sections of the society and is capable of being regulated. Therefore, betting should not be equated with unscrupulous activities such as match-fixing.

Having been so distinguished, a regulation along the lines of the UK model could be put in place to establish regulatory watchdogs tasked with monitoring betting houses and persons entering into betting transactions. Those placing bets could be brought within a licensing system wherein their identification and other details are recorded. This could be supplemented by an information-sharing mechanism whereby a database of undesirable entities such as bookies and fixers would be shared with players so that they do not remain in the dark with respect to suspicious activities. Importantly, players, match officials and administrators should be kept out of such regulated betting, and they should continue to be bound by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and IPL rules. It is important to note here that the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code prohibits participants from soliciting, authorising, placing, accepting, laying, or otherwise entering into any bet with any person in relation to the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of any match or event. The Code further makes it an offence to ensure “the occurrence of a particular incident in a match or event, which occurrence is to the participant’s knowledge the subject of a bet and for which he/she expects to receive or has received any reward.” As can be seen from the provisions, the liability is imposed specifically on the participant. This is in line with the opinion of the Lodha Committee, which has recommended that if betting were to be legalised, the players should nevertheless be barred from indulging in the activity so as to prevent any apprehension concerning their integrity. It is submitted that bringing these reforms in the current uncertain and highly ambiguous regime would address several surrounding issues, provided all the stakeholders work in tandem.

Lesson could be learnt from the state of Nagaland, which recently enacted a law, namely the 2016 Nagaland Prohibition of Gambling and Promotion and Regulation of Online Games of Skill Act. The said legislation defines “games of skill” as including “all such games where there is a preponderance of skill over chance, including where the skill relates to strategising the manner of placing wagers or placing bets, or where the skill lies in team selection or selection of virtual stocks based on analyses, or where the skill relates to the manner in which the moves are made, whether through deployment of physical or mental skill and acumen.” Besides providing such an inclusive definition, the Act sets out a schedule enlisting certain activities that shall be regarded as games of skill, such as poker, rummy and virtual games of cricket and football. All such games shall be regulated by way of issuance of a license to persons or entities based in India. Upon receiving the license, such a person or entity is eligible to earn revenue from games of skill, whether by way of advertising, obtaining a share of winnings or charging a fee for membership.

Some stakeholders are advocating for a uniform legislation on betting that would ensure that the legal position on betting remains the same across all the states. In July 2017, the All India Gaming Federation along with an advisory panel presented a white paper to Law Commissioner BS Chauhan, recommending a central legislation regulating online skill gaming, and that sports betting in general and cricket betting in particular be recognised as a game of skill. Such a legislation could introduce a system of checks and balances along the lines of that existing in the UK, for instance. A proposal has also been moved from the Central Information Commission in the case of Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. PIO, recommending the Government of India to consider moving the subject of sports from the State List in the Constitution of India to the Concurrent List so as to ensure a uniform policy regulating sports bodies and national sports federations such as the BCCI.

CONCLUSION

The international discourse on the issue of sports betting shows just how inadequate the Indian legal regime is to cater to the same. Suggestions have been pouring in from all quarters as to how, upon being legalized, cricket betting could be regulated. These suggestions, along with international best practices concerning ethics and betting, should be taken into account by the legislature and the executive to bring in an appropriate framework to address cricket betting. This, of course, requires the active participation of all the stakeholders, with the BCCI leading the way. 

[1] Ali Qtaishat and Ashish Kumar, ‘Surveying the Legality Issues and Current Developments’ (2013) 20 JL Policy and & Globalization 40, 42.

[2] See Gambling Act 2005 s 88.

[3] Rex v. Fortier 13 Que. KB 308.

[4] Rohini Mahyera, ‘Saving Cricket: A Proposal for the Legalization of Gambling in India to Regulate Corrupt Betting Practices in Cricket’ (2012) 26 Emory Int'l L. Rev.

Dahmane v KRC GENK

Court of Labour of Antwerp (Hasselt district) 6 May 2014

Chamber 2

Algemeen rolnummer 2009/AH/199

The Facts 

• Dahmane signed with KRC GENK on 1 July 2007 for four years (till 30 June 2011). Dahmane unilaterally terminated the contract January 2008. 
• KRC GENK demanded from Dahmane compensation of EUR 878.888,88 (36 months wages) at the labour court of Tongeren. The demand was based on Article 5 § 2 of the Law for Professional Sportsmen (24 February 1978) and the Royal Decree of 13 July 2004 that Determines the Amount of the Compensation based on the Law for Professional Sportsmen. According to the Royal Decree (of 2004) the compensation had to be equal to 36 months of salary in the case of Dahmane. 

• Dahmane demanded EUR 250.000,00 from KRC GENK compensation calculated in accordance with the Labour Agreements Law (03 July 1978). D. argued that according to article 40 § 1 of this law, the severance pay can only amount to 12 months of salary.  

• 25 May 2009 - The Labour Court agreed with the demands of KRC GENK, whereas it disagreed with Dahmane’s. Dahmane placed an appeal. 

• 22 June 2010 – Court of Labour decided that Dahmane had unlawfully unilaterally terminated the labour contract between him and KRC GENK. Dahmane had to reimburse KRC GENK with a compensation equal to 36 months of salary, because Dahmane fell under the Law regarding Labour Agreements of Professional Sportsmen of 24 February 1978. The Court rejected Dahmane’s request for damages.   

• The Court of Labour turned to the Belgian Constitutional Court with the preliminary question whether the Law for Professional Sportsmen of 24 February 1978 breaches the Articles 10 and 11 of the Belgian Constitution on Equal Treatment, as there was an inconsistency with the Labour Agreements Law of 03 July 1978 under which the severance pay can only amount to 12 months of salary. Secondly, it was questioned whether the rule in question infringed the freedom of employment.  

• 18 May 2011 – the Belgian Constitutional Court declared itself incompetent to answer the preliminary questions because the question whether a professional sportsmen falls under either the Law for Professional Sportsmen or the Labour Agreements Law solely depended on Royal Decree on Determining the Amount of the Compensation based on the Law for Professional Sportsmen (13 July 2004). According to Belgian law, the legality of the Royal Decree has to be decided by the Court of Labour itself. 

• Therefore, the judgment of 6 May 2014 was the second time the Court of Labour dealt with the case regarding the unilateral termination of the player’s contract between Dahmane and KRC GENK. This time it had to decide whether the Royal Decree breached the Belgian Constitution.
  

The Case 

• The demands by Dahmane:

  • That the Court of Labour rejects the Royal Decree on Determining the Amount of the Compensation based on the Law for Professional Sportsmen (13 July 2004) because it breaches the Belgian Constitution (part II, §1).

  • That the Court of Labour asks the CJEU the preliminary question whether the Royal Decree of 2004 breaches Article 45 TFEU since the free movement of professional sportsmen is unreasonably restricted by the Royal Decree (part II, §1).

• KRC GENK arguments:

  • Football has specific characteristics that can be summarized in:

    • Atypical employment market

    • Atypical professional career (part III.b. §5).

  • That the difference between labour agreements of professional sportsmen on the one hand “normal” labour agreements is based on the “specific character of labour agreements of professional sportsmen en the specific character of sport in general”.

    The “specificity of sport” forms a special statute for sport, whereby common law cannot be applied unabridged (part III.b. §6).

  • Referring to European Case Law, and the Commission’s White book on sport, KRC GENK highlighted that to achieve the objectives inherent to sport, which include avoiding competition distortions and the preservation of the stability of participating sport clubs, certain specifics measures can be taken aimed at guarantying  legal certainty of labour relationships in the sport sector (part III.b. §6).

• The Court's holdings
  

  • Agreed that sport exhibits certain characteristics that can deviate from other labour relationships between employer and employee, but held that since the Royal Decree in question did not mention the specificity of sport, this exception is inapplicable (part III.b. §5).

  • KRC GENK did not take the economic aspect of sport (e.g. the pursuit of economic profits) into account in its arguments, and the importance of fair competition in this regard. These economic objectives are not exclusive to the sport sector but underlie the market economy in general. Therefore, the Court sees no valid reason as to why a separate Royal Decree is necessary to achieve the objectives of the sport sector when similar objectives are pursued by other economic sectors. In other words, no separate laws should be applicable to sport when it pursues economic objectives (part III.b. §6).

  • As regards KRC GENK’s arguments that for football in particular certain legislative deviations preventing richer clubs from buying all the good players from smaller clubs, thereby distorting competition, are justifiable, the Court found them to be incorrect. Even though football’s transfer system causes movement of footballers to differ from the “normal” functioning of the labour market, in this case it is important to draw a distinction between the buying and selling of players between clubs on the one hand, and the unilateral termination of a player’s contract by either club or player on the other. Yet again the Court saw no reason why the specificity of football should enable the adoption of Royal Decrees breaching article 10 and 11 of the Belgian Constitution (part III.b. §6).

  • The Court took into account that the average career of a professional sportsman is relatively short (12 years according to RKC GENK and six to eight years according to Dahmane). A compensation amounting to 36 months of salary would for many professional sportsmen be equal to 1/3 of total career revenues and is therefore not justified in the present case (part III.b. §7).

  • The Royal Decree applies to professional sports in general, not only to football, KRC GENK’s can therefore not rely on the specificity of football to justify its legality (part III.b. §6 and §7).

  • Given that the Royal Decree is declared contrary to the Constitution, the Court sees no reason to make a preliminary reference to the ECJ (part III.b. §12).

Conclusion: the Court considered that a Royal Decree imposing a compensation of 36 months of salary on a player breaching his contract is disproportionate. Furthermore, the Court found the Royal Decree unjustifiable under the Constitutional principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination (part III.b. §8).