Public Gaming Magazine Sept/Oct 2021

30 PUBLIC GAMING INTERNATIONAL • SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2021 PGRI INTERVIEWS Paul Jason: Sports betting is being approved across the country at a break- neck speed. Won’t the whole process of legislating to legalize and regulate sports betting smooth a path for iLottery legislation too, making it easier and faster to implement legislation that regulates iLottery? Howard Glaser: I do not agree with the assumption that sports betting is the leading edge, and we can expect that iGaming and iLottery will automatically draft in behind this process. iLottery and iGaming are different animals than sports-betting. State governments treat sports betting as an extension of sports, it’s as much about sports as it is about gaming. iLottery and iGaming are purer forms of gaming – and that’s the way state government policy-makers think about it so that is the way we should think about it. For this reason, I do not think that the pathway to regulating sports-betting is a great model to use for iLottery. Instead, I believe the industry needs to apply a thoughtful, deliberate, and consistent strategy that aligns with the way that shapers of public policy view these issues. Legalizing and regulating the betting on sports is an important step for legislators to take, but it does set the tone for iLottery and iGaming. There are lots of differences between these game entertainment categories, and we should not base our strategies on how it has unfolded in the sports-betting space. Could we drill down a little more on how the process of getting iLottery to be legalized and regulated differs from sports betting? H. Glaser: Legislators don’t view iLottery as being in the same bucket as sports betting. Lottery is a government function and not a commercial function in the eyes of many legislatures. When it comes to sports betting, legislators believe they are acceding to the wishes of a large group of constituents. That’s especially true once the sports leagues came on board. There is not quite the same wide cross-section of vocal support for iLottery. Lottery players want to be able to play digitally, but they are not organized into a politically influential interest group within the state – at least not like there is for sports betting. Lottery is fundamentally designed to benefit the public through the $80 billion in sales and $25 billion in net revenues that it delivers for good works. That’s huge, but the societal benefit is not highly visible. The financial benefit to the state is already baked into their budgets. The prospect of revenue increases from iLottery do not necessarily command enough attention to actually drive legislative action. That said, there has been a lot of legislative action to legalize and regulate iLottery and we expect that to continue. Sports betting, commercial casinos and tribal gaming have active and well-funded political action apparatuses. iLottery advocates need to develop consistent messaging to amplify its political voice and potential. How about retailers? Are they warming up to the prospect of iLottery? H. Glaser: Retailers are wary of competition from online retailers. Amazon and other online merchants have had a devastating impact on retail. Convenience stores say that they at least have one thing that online merchants don’t have and that’s lottery products. It has been hard for retailers to see how making these products available online FACTORS SHAPING REGULATORY POLICY IN THE DIGITAL AGE Howard Glaser Global Head of Government Affairs and Legislative Counsel, Scientific Games I believe the industry needs to apply a thoughtful, deliberate, and consistent strategy that aligns with the way that shapers of public policy view these issues.