Is it a conflict of interest for DAZN to host gambling on boxing?

Yes, well, thankyou for that Frankie. Couldn't see how it was a conflict for DAZN can't particularly see how it's a conflict for FOX either, but on a more humanitarian note I gotta say I'm betting online Bookies gonna be doing real well once some sporting events get going again, with all the misery that'll follow. Millions of people down to eating their shoestrings and barely keeping a roof over their loved ones combined with that straight-to-your-pocket temptation gonna be a real evil combination I reckon. Probably we should be petitioning our elected representatives to put restrictions on this crap... or alternatively buying shares in it.

In reading boxingscene.com’s excellent two part series on DAZN, I noted the following: One thing DAZN might do - and is planning to do - is move into online sports betting. My question: does this open the door for potential corruption or conflict of interest? Could it give DAZN a vested interest, potentially, in seeing a winner? Would welcome your thoughts. Thanks! Nah they should be fine. Sky have done it for years with Skybet, they take bets on various sports they televise including boxing.

Excellent points everyone. Thank you so much.

I agree with these. I think it is a clear conflict and I'm sure they can do online betting , just not on boxing. I've been trying to find some relevent legislation but there's very little that I can see as being relevent and certainly nothing in gambling legislation that pertains to conflicts of interest. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole rulebook is re-written in the light of high court ruling to allow individual states to set their own rules, cos the existing federal rules seem largely based on pre-internet legislation. https://www.legalsportsreport.com/20922/match-fixing-primer-sports-betting/ Closest I can find is some stuff on bribery in sports events: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/224 But again nothing talking about conflict of interest. Think is when you think about it it's quite hard to see the mechanics of how DAZN or whoever would actually benefit from match fixing without it being glaringly obvious that they were acting improperly - I mean the way bookies operate they profit irrespective of outcome anyway and odds are always fairly tightly constrained by the balance between making a profit and trying to offer more attractive odds than your competitors. Fight fixing might make sense if you're a individual or group trying to take money off a sports book - like by placing large wagers on an underdog you know is going to win - but it makes no sense for a bookies to try and fix fights to win money off itself. :lol1: I suppose you could offer slightly more attractive odds on the fighter you plan to lose to attract more bets to that fighter but that ish is easily modellable statistcally and it's hard to see how you'd get away with it for long if you consitently had odds that weren't in line with your competiors and consistently profited from it. I think folk seem to have in mind some comparison with the Ali act conflict of interest, but the pupose of that was to delinate areas fiduciary responsiblity betwen the parties that act on a fighters behalf in order to protect a fighter. In this case no such conflict would appear to exist so the situations ain't really comparable. Anyways I'm ranmbling. Best I can tell under US law there doesn't seem to be anything that would stop 'em, though since gambling legislation now seems to be largely regulated at state level it might vary state to state.

I dont think the sports betting adds any additional conflict that doesnt already exist. As a matter of fact, the betting is probably less of a conflict than the broadcast rights are. Most books dont really care one way or the other who wins. They lay off their excess to vegas and simply collect the 10% juice on the losers. Unless a book is holding ALL of their action in-house and not laying off any, they dont care who wins. Ok, I see your point.

I agree with these. I think it is a clear conflict and I'm sure they can do online betting , just not on boxing. I dont think the sports betting adds any additional conflict that doesnt already exist. As a matter of fact, the betting is probably less of a conflict than the broadcast rights are. Most books dont really care one way or the other who wins. They lay off their excess to vegas and simply collect the 10% juice on the losers. Unless a book is holding ALL of their action in-house and not laying off any, they dont care who wins.

networks already have a vested interest in who wins, based on whatever guarantees are in their exclusive rights agreements. It does sound like a possible conflict of interest but it must be legal or they won't do it. I agree with these. I think it is a clear conflict and I'm sure they can do online betting , just not on boxing.

It does sound like a possible conflict of interest but it must be legal or they won't do it.

In reading boxingscene.com’s excellent two part series on DAZN, I noted the following: One thing DAZN might do - and is planning to do - is move into online sports betting. My question: does this open the door for potential corruption or conflict of interest? Could it give DAZN a vested interest, potentially, in seeing a winner? Would welcome your thoughts. Thanks! networks already have a vested interest in who wins, based on whatever guarantees are in their exclusive rights agreements.

Given DAZNs position, it would almost be like Top Rank running a betting pool. Technically DAZN isn’t a promoter I suppose, but it has a clear interest in seeing it’s stable of fighters advance over others. Certainly other groups have gone this path, like Sky or Fox. I just wonder if it creates a potential conflict. I'm not sure how that would work. Bookies odds are set so they ultimately profit either way anyway (which confines them to a fairly narrow range of odds to be both profitable and competitive with other bookies) and if say some DAZN betting service was offering significantly different odds to everyone else - enough to draw any significant volume from other betting services - and that subsequent results were seen to profit them it would be picked up very, very quickly. Ditto if betting patterns showed up that were out of line with the odds - which is how most rigging is usually picked up. Maybe it might be possible to do it very subtlely for a while, I dunno, you'd have to ask someone who know more about how the sytem works. Ultimately I don't see it though... it'd be a massive chance to take and ironically the very last thing bookies are into is gambling.:lol1: Nice little laymans breakdown here of how bookies calculate odds and make profit. Probably a good read for anyone with an interest. https://www.onlinebetting.org.uk/betting-guides/how-do-bookmakers-set-odds-and-make-money.html

How so? They don't ref or judge the fights. Sky already does what DAZN plans to. Given DAZNs position, it would almost be like Top Rank running a betting pool. Technically DAZN isn’t a promoter I suppose, but it has a clear interest in seeing it’s stable of fighters advance over others. Certainly other groups have gone this path, like Sky or Fox. I just wonder if it creates a potential conflict.

I wouldn't feel 100% secure laying down bet money to someone who has an interest in the outcome...As legit as it may be, I'd always have questions.