The Pool Betting Bill

It is just not possible to legislate betting and all forms of gambling out of existence. Education is the answer here

By Peter Ibbotson

By tradition, Wednesday is the day on which the big pools firms in the UK publish in their advertisements in the daily papers their “dividends” for matches played on the previous Saturday. Thus, on Wednesday, September 30, in the News Chronicle (as in the other daily papers) we could read — if we were interested — that Littlewoods had paid £250,668 for 2d on their Treble Chance pool; Vernons had paid 210 shillings for 1 shilling on the Three Draws; Cope’s had paid 48 shillings for 1 shilling for Four Aways; and so on. (Incidentally, September 26 was one of the few weeks when my own Three Draws system would have shown a profit. It is a system which calls for 125 lines; and would actually have produced two winning lines. It is a system which I do not recommend anyone to use. I don’t use it myself; I don’t in fact do the pools).

For two years, however, thanks to a back-bench Labour MP who successfully sponsored a private member’s bill in the House of Commons and had the pleasure of seeing it become an Act of Parliament, the football pools promoters have had to include in their advertisements a statement of their expenses and commission. So, on September 30, as well as announcing their dividends for September 26, the promoters also had to announce their commission and expenses for September 12. It is interesting and instructive to compare these; the deductions are declared as a percentage of total money staked in that particular week. Littlewoods, Murphys, Vernons and Cope’s, members of the Pool Promoters Association, announced expenses and commission as follows: Littlewoods, 23.3%; Murphys, 29.7%: Vernons, 25.3%; and Cope’s, 27.5%. Other promoters declared deductions as follows: Shermans, 27.5%; Soccer Pools, 28.9%; Empire, 28.8%; and Zetters, 27.8%.

Add to these deductions for commission and expenses the Government’s pools tax of 30% of total stakes, and you will see that only half (at most) of a person’s stakes is available for prize money.

Control pool betting

It is a good thing that the Government of Mauritius is determined on legislation to control pool betting. The proposed new ordinance deserves widespread support. From my mail over the past few years, I know that there has been a great deal of public disquiet over many matters connected with pool betting; the ordinance proposes steps to deal with these. All bets must be made on a printed coupon and must be sent by post. This is a very sensible proposal; it will stop the evil of children being sent by parents to place bets on their behalf at the betting shop or agency. It will stop children making bets on their own behalf; and the proposal to make illegal any pool betting by persons under 21 merely brings local legislation in line with UK law.

In the UK, the football pool promoters’ advertisement often, if not always, contain some such statement as “Send today for free win plans and coupons — IF OVER 21″. (It is also a rule of all the reputable pools firms to refuse entries giving accommodation, school, or college addresses. A pools coupon giving an address such as “P.O. Box 202” or some such number would not be accepted. It might be as well to include an amendment to the Pool Betting Bill to cover this point if it is not already covered by the rules of local pool partners).

The Government refers in its explanatory memorandum about the Bill to the serious social evil caused by betting by children and adolescents. Personally, I believe that betting by anyone constitutes a serious social evil; but it is just not possible to legislate betting and all forms of gambling out of existence. Education is the answer here.

There is reference also to the malpractices which occur with regard to betting on local football matches — not only malpractices with regard to the pools, but malpractices such as interference with players. Uncontrolled betting can lead to ‘fixing’ of football matches just as it can lead to doping of horses; I wrote at length about this some weeks ago.

One secondary aim of the Bill is to provide, out of the receipts of pool betting taxes, money to be applied to the proper organisation and control of sporting events on which pool betting is authorised. This idea of Government subvention for sporting events is all to the good, provided that there is no vestige or suspicion of racial discrimination at this event. Thus, we would not expect the Government to provide financial support for a football match between a South African XI and a Mauritius XI if the South African authorities insisted that the Mauritius XI be an all-white team. Nor would we expect the Government to provide financial support for any form of race discrimination, or whose organisation in practice (even if there were no rule providing for such discrimination) led to discrimination.

And unfortunately, we know too only well that (as I have shown in previous articles) racing in Mauritius is riddled with such discrimination. (If M. Duval should win the Curepipe by-election, may we expect him to make his maiden speech on horse racing? I know it is one which is dear to his heart; though perhaps he feels that it would be flogging a dead horse to appeal for no race discrimination at the Turf and Jockey Clubs).

Overseas football pools

It is pleasing to see that the Government is awake to the fact that “large sums of money are leaving the country for investment in overseas football pools… to the disadvantage of the economy of the country as a whole”, especially as the UK Government reaps a 30% tax on all money staked in Mauritius on English football pools. Therefore, so that the local pool promoter shall not be disadvantaged vis-a-vis his colleague who is an agent for a UK promoter, the Government proposes that when the local man is taxed at 20% of total stake money, the agent shall be taxed at Rs 500 per month. It was the Mauritius Times which drew attention to this fact (that UK pools promoters get money from Mauritius and pay tax thereon to the UK Government) in one of my articles over two years ago; so that we of the Mauritius Times are doubly pleased at this particular provision in the Bill.

We wish the Pool Betting Bill every success in its passage into law. It is difficult to see on what grounds it can be opposed, either as a whole or in particular provisions. I would like to know, however, why, since the UK rate of tax on pools is 30% of the total stake money, the rate in Mauritius is to be 20% only.

Since the Government has taken steps to get revenue in a way (taxation of overseas pools) first suggested in the Mauritius Times so long ago, may we also hope that it will act on another revenue-raising suggestion of mine, put forward in these columns early this year? Namely, to cash in on the stamp-collecting industry (particularly the ‘new issues’ dealers) and issue separate stamps for Rodrigues — first an overprinted set of the ordinary Mauritius issue, followed at a decent interval by a definitive set for Rodrigues. There is really little reason why Rodrigues should not do as well out of postage stamps as Pitcairn Island or Tristan da Cunha…

We can expect, of course, the vested interests of the pools industry to oppose the Bill tooth and nail. But we shall be interested to see the identities of those who oppose the regulation of betting, and who are therefore content with the existing state of affairs; a state which is admittedly unsatisfactory, leads to all sorts of malpractices, and in which the pools promoters’ clients have little protection. In short, we shall see who has the interests of the ordinary man at heart, and who is primarily concerned only with his own pocket and profit.

6th Year – No 270
Friday 16th October 1959

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 3 May 2024