Today we publish the second part of the interview with Andrea Vota, General Director of Jdigital, where he spoke openly about the irregular path taken by the Royal Decree of online gaming advertising, from the first conversations until its recent approval in the European Commission. Also, he made reference to the distinctions between public and private gaming, while describing them as erroneous and insisting on the need to differentiate between legal and illegal gaming. We leave you with his words:
When the minister took office, many meetings were held with companies in the sector, the press, with associations of people with gambling problems and we could say that there was social dialogue ... what happened so that the text was completely radicalized in a month to everyone's surprise?
At the moment that the social dialogue takes place, it is produced on a norm that in the end is not the one that was presented a few days ago and that is the text that will finally be approved. No social dialogue took place there.
So we don't understand. This story hides everything behind the pandemic, the protection of the vulnerable player, etc. What we do not understand is why when the alarm state is lifted, at that moment it is allowed to return to the previous situation of the beginning of the alarm state. Also, with the start of all sporting events.
So one of two, either there is an alarm or there is not. In that case, if everything had been linear, it would have developed with a certain linearity so to speak, it would be very clear. But it really is always kicking back and lurching. Present a Royal Decree in February, then the state of alarm, then lift it. Let the companies advertise, then present another text a month later and send it to Brussels as a matter of urgency.
So, we do not see that the situation has been studied in such a deep way and with all the actors in question, as to carry out the entire procedure that has been carried out in recent weeks.
When this arrives in Brussels, it comes with a request for an emergency procedure, Brussels also grants it, the way for the rule to be processed in Spain is done. In our opinion, it should have been done differently, especially due to the impact that this decree has. It was necessary to involve the stakeholders of the sector in a more active way and not only online gaming companies, operators, but also the media around the world of sports.
In the end, the big football teams will have no problem getting sponsorships. But we are aware of affiliated companies that were conducting conversations with women's football teams, which are teams that find it difficult to find sponsorships and suddenly all the negotiation falls. Now these teams are not going to be able to have sponsorship from any online gaming company, so it is necessary to see the big picture. This is a unilateral and imposed decree. Really, from an imposition I don't think anything good will come out.
Regarding the treatment of favor that is given to the ONCE and SELAE, Mikel Arana justifies it saying that they really do not have profit motive. What do you think when you hear it?
They are statements that then a little conflict with reality. What surprises me on the whole issue of public or private gaming, and distinguish it as this government is doing, I insist that there is no good gaming and bad gaming. There is the legal game, in which we are all, and then there is the illegal one.
Regarding public gaming and private gaming, the argument that often comes from the government is the immediacy of the reward. When you make a bet on a football game that will be in a few days, the answer is not immediate. Instead, you look at the ONCE scratch cards and the reward is immediate. It cannot be distinguished by saying outrageous things like that, we strongly oppose the story going in that direction, the direction has to be between legal gaming and illegal gaming, there is no other way around.
A western democratic country has to bet on the legality of its commercial activities. And in this case, it is where we have to go. The discrimination between public and private gaming, leaving it to the criterion that the Christmas lottery ticket will be purchased in September; And, the reward is going to occur in December is not worth us. Because there are cases, such as the ONCE scratch-off where the reward is immediate. We have to really focus on what reality is, without advertising.
Do you think that the online sector has made a mistake or does it have to be self-critical?
For me it is too early to say something, because after all I have just arrived. I have the photo, but I don't have the full 360 ° photo.
There may be improvement points in online gaming, as in any other sector. In the end, we can be wrong, if we have to improve on anything, it is to build that reputation of the online gaming sector. We have to counteract data that in the end do not have much to do with reality, and that is a responsibility of the sector, show to the public opinion everything that is developed to protect the vulnerable player, promote responsible gaming and of course the battle between legal and illegal is something we have to go towards.
To answer your question, there are improvement points as in any sector.
Does this public disaffection of society towards gaming seem to you to be motivated more by published opinion than by public opinion?
If the story that is being constructed is that in Spain there is a gaming problem, obviously everyone will believe that there are problems when the same government data tells you about 0.3% of problem gambling. And in that 0.3% all gaming comes in, which means that online gaming takes a portion. You have to see the photo, you have to see the real numbers and from the sector we are going to work so that this affects society and public opinion.
We will have to work to change that opinion in a certain way, not for our benefit but to make it as similar as possible to reality. You cannot draw a reality that does not exist and that is not backed by numbers.
Is it late to change that perception?
It's never too late. We will never reach an environment with total acceptance and 100% of gaming, but we can improve that perception with the right tools. Obviously, for the approval of this regulation we were late, I don't know. You just have to look at reality, look at the numbers, count them, justify them; And, from there, I don't think that in a mature society there is a problem to understand it.
Do you think there is an anti-gambling movement or an anti-gambling lobby, as a company director recently said?
I have read the interview, I found it interesting. I don't know if there is a worldwide lobby, I wouldn't be surprised, but I don't know.
The issue is that players would switch to unlicensed black market operators, where there is basically no protection for the vulnerable. In an approach in which you want to dismantle an industry of legal operators, it could lead to consequences that are dire, especially for those who really want to protect, because in the end this type of regulation has no other intention than the good intention of protecting , but we are still making mistakes because instead of protecting we are going to generate a problem and a flow of vulnerable people to illegal websites.
If you are a vulnerable player, in the end it may have more acceptance the fact that you can go to websites that have nothing to do with the control that the DGOJ does to pages like the ones we represent
What is next to be announced by Jdigital? Any campaign, any study? What are they preparing?
Right now we are, let's say, a bit brainstorming, because we have just started this new mandate and we are constantly thinking about how to carry out this work in the most effective way possible.
For prudence, I prefer not to anticipate the facts or reveal plans. For now, all kinds of action can have a place in our strategy, from studies to campaigns and videos. We are evaluating it, internally we are studying it. From the sector we will do something that goes in the direction of defending the reputation of the sector, improving it and telling our version of the facts, backed by the data, not changing the data and reality to support a discourse that is obviously quite ideological.
Have you had contact with Mikel Arana?
From the association yes, before my incorporation. Not personally, I hope to have contact to reiterate our position.
Short-term goal?
Right now, my short-term goal is to soften the impact of this Royal Decree once it is approved. Then, it will be necessary to start thinking about actions, especially in order to return to society, within a framework of social responsibility, actions that have an impact on everything and that those actions in the end can soften the effects of this Royal Decree that in part can be cheap, can be health. The increase in illegal websites worries us, above all, thinking about vulnerable users.
What do you think about the clash between land-based and online?
Unity is missing within the gaming sector, which is very important. I have had a very positive meeting with CEJUEGO and I think we have to go to that sector unit, because a regulation that today can affect online, tomorrow can affect land-based and vice versa, we have to support each other. What has happened in the past, I do not know the details, but we do need a sector unit and we will collaborate between online and land-based, of course.
18+ | Juegoseguro.es – Jugarbien.es
