Abe, casinos win; Tournament of Rose

In a snap election, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his Liberal Democratic Party posted big gains. The mandate was sufficiently huge to give the LDP outright control over every committee in the Diet. This is a big boost to Abe’s pro-casino push, Although the LDP did not campaign on that as a priority issue (responding to North Korea‘s missile tests was of greater concern), this result reinforces the disconnect between Mr. Abe’s own popularity and the strong public disaffection from the idea of casinos. The former has clearly trumped the latter. The enabling legislation for integrated gaming resorts comes into effect next month, even as the regulatory bill remains a work in progress.

In an unrelated development, James Packer dismissed the idea of a Crown Resorts bid in Japan, saying, “It is off my table. But I am only one director and I haven’t had the conversation with the board.’’ He elaborated, “I am not saying ‘no’ forever, but what I am saying ‘no’ to is writing a [$390 million] or [$780 million] cheque to go into Japan next week.” That being said, it’s dangerous to assume there will be a second wave of Japanese casinos on which to capitalize. Caesars Entertainment made that wager on Macao and lost big time. Packer chalked up his caution to cost overruns on Crown projects in Australia. In the meantime, VIP play at Crown casinos is down 40% and 16 Crown employees languish in China as a result of over-aggressive marketing of Crown’s (former) Macanese casinos. Being Packer these days is not a blissful state of affairs.

* Gaming-law expert I. Nelson Rose is back in force, publishing a slew of analyses. For instance, he sees the issue at stake in New Jersey‘s Supreme Court sports-betting case is really about the ability of states to legalize and regulate marijuana. “[Chief Justice John] Roberts appreciates that legal gambling is a state issue. He and the other conservative members of the Court would like to knock out every federal law that prevents states from making their own decisions.” Rose predicts, “Even if New Jersey loses, PASPA is toast. The law was passed in 1992, when there was no World Wide Web, let alone Internet gambling, daily fantasy sports or eSports. States and gaming operators will see that they can create coalitions in Congress on the state’s right issue of letting states make their own decisions about gambling.”

In a related column, Rose writes, “Today, 44 states have medical cannabis laws.  Yet federal law treats marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug under the Controlled Substances Act, meaning the Food and Drug Administration has determined it has no medical use. Where is the federal issue in telling the states they are wrong? Is it enough that Attorney General Jeff Sessions thinks smoking pot is immoral? The New Jersey sports-betting case will have to directly face the question of moral pluralism.”

In both columns, Rose says, “I’m hoping the Court will give us a clean decision. The worst result would be a ruling that New Jersey only has the right to decriminalize sports-betting, but not regulate it. Other states would follow, with some truly weird statutes eliminating laws against sports-betting, and who knows what else.”

Rose also takes on e-sports, saying that the goal of regulation is to save the sport from itself: “A lot of Millennials are going to lose a lot of money when the eSports skins bubble bursts. Nevada’s regulators deserve credit for forcing the elimination of skins betting, before it got even bigger. 

“Parimutuel betting does not work with skins.” Passing the enforcement burden onto sports books “is a rather brilliant move. Nevada regulators get to set all of the standards, pretty much for the entire world.

“And they don’t have to do any of the actual work. There’s nothing wrong with this; I don’t think we really want Nevada gaming regulators

to oversee professional football games.”

If you’re interested in the evolution of gambling, Rose’s Web site is definitely one to bookmark.