The arguments for allowing legal betting on basketball are much the same as those for legalising football betting in 2003. Then, expansion of legal gambling beyond horse racing and Mark Six was justified to combat thriving illegal operations, which is now the case with rogue betting on basketball. The latter now turns over up to HK$90 billion a year, according to the Hong Kong Jockey Club.
The parallels do not stop there. In 2003 Hong Kong was battling severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars), a recession and rising unemployment. Twenty-two years later, the city faces an estimated budget deficit of more than HK$87 billion, following shortfalls of more than HK$100 billion in the previous two financial years.
The government has agreed to consider a proposal from the Jockey Club – the city’s biggest taxpayer and leading charity donor – for regulated basketball betting. The club is in talks with officials aimed at legalisation by September, in time for the new season.
The club estimates basketball betting will eventually be worth HK$1.5 billion a year in revenue for the government. A source said that could take three or four years because the service would only be available during the season and the public needed time to get to know the betting system. The club has welcomed the government’s invitation to consider a proposal that would enable it to take on the illegal operators, whom it blames for social problems including loan sharking, as “a matter of public interest”.
The arguments against expanding regulated gambling now are also much the same as 22 years ago, such as the risk of addiction and the impact on youth, among other social dangers. This is really a debate about the case for and against gambling, legal or otherwise, a matter of community concern that has, rightly, given some members of the government pause for reflection, which we can expect to be mirrored by some lawmakers.
If illegal gambling cannot be stamped out – as exemplified by thriving unregulated football betting – arguably that strengthens the case for proper regulation that brings at least some of the proceeds within the tax net for community benefit.
