Flutter deal with Native Americans in California may get Murdoch off reservation
Flutter
chief executive
Peter Jackson
, the Californian dream remains just that.
Seven years after the US supreme court struck down a federal law banning sports gambling, 30 states, plus Washington DC and Puerto Rico, have legalised online betting on sports – driving the spectacular growth of
FanDuel
, in which Flutter moved to buy a controlling stake just days after the 2018 ruling.
But after a series of straight quarters of more than 20 per cent handle growth – covering the total amount wagered by betters – in Flutter's sportsbook revenue in the US, it had slowed to 8 per cent in the first three months of this year as the pace of states legalising the activity slowed.
Just one state is so far on track to allow online sports betting to go live in 2025: Missouri, which has an adult population of 4.7 million.
READ MORE
Questions remain about the path of betting reform in the three most populous states,
California
, Texas and Florida.
California, which recently surpassed Japan to become the world's fourth-largest economy, with an estimated adult population of about 31 million, is the big one. It is also a state where FanDuel and smaller rival DraftKings made powerful enemies when they backed an initiative to legalise digital sports betting three years ago.
An overwhelming majority of Californian voters rejected the plan in late 2022, after powerful Native American tribes, who have a near-monopoly on casino-style gambling, reportedly spent more than $200 million (€172 million) campaigning against the proposal.
The gambling companies have since adopted a different tack, with FanDuel president Christian Genetski and DraftKings chief executive Jason Robins making an olive-branch appearance at the annual Western Indian Gaming Tradeshow and Convention in San Diego in late March. FanDuel has a 43 per cent share of the US market.
'If I reflect on 2022, It was a well-intentioned but uninformed and misguided attempt,' Genetski said in a panel discussion chaired by the head of the Californian Nations Indian Gaming Association. 'It was definitely a spectacular failure on our part. It wasn't the right plan or the right time. So, we looked in the mirror and said, 'It was a failure, what will we do?''
[
Up to 800,000 Betfair and Paddy Power customers hit by data breach
Opens in new window
]
Subsequent reports suggested that the tribes are looking for the lion's share of annual revenues from any future sports betting in the golden state. Investment bank Jefferies' analysts recently estimated the potential Californian gross online sports betting revenues at $4 billion – double that of New York, the current largest market.
'Even under a market structure with as low as 30 per cent revenue share to operators, California would still be a top three state and generate the same [gross revenues] as New Jersey,' it said.
The slowdown in the US growth handle in recent quarters has been partly down to FanDuel and smaller peers spending less on promotional free bets, a dip in National Basketball Association viewership, and broader economic concerns influencing consumer betting habits. But the dearth of state launches is the main factor.
Legislating to open up online sports betting in Texas and Florida – where governor Ron DeSantis struck a deal in 2021 to give the local Seminole tribe a monopoly on this activity – is even further behind California.
To be sure, this hasn't got in the way of Flutter,
which moved its main listing to New York in May 2024
, post a 50 per cent share surge over the past year, to give the group a market value of almost $54 billion.
This has been helped by strong growth in FanDuel's igaming business, which has a 27 per cent US market share with digital casino games including blackjack and roulette. Still, this business accounts for only about 30 per cent of FanDuel's revenues.
JP Morgan analysts reckon that FanDuel's net gaming revenue grew 19 per cent in the second quarter to $1.82 billion – driven by 38 per cent growth in igaming as sports betting picked up to 14 per cent. They see the international business – including Paddy Power and Betfair in Ireland and the UK – posting 3.5 per cent organic growth.
The group's recent purchases of
Italy's third-largest online gambling company Snaitech for $2.6 billion
(completed in April) and
Brazilian betting company NSX Group for $350 million cash
(finalised in June) will have helped.
[
Flutter loses out to rival in race to run Italy's main lotto franchise
Opens in new window
]
While Flutter shares dipped briefly in late May when it narrowly missed out in a race to operate Italy's main lottery to market incumbent International Game Technology's (IGT) bid of €2.23 billion for the nine-year gig, analysts have broadly welcomed the development amid a belief that IGT may have overpaid. IGT has since rebranded as Brightstar Lottery.
The stock has also been underpinned by speculation that Flutter will end up joining the S&P 500 stock market index in New York, the world's most followed market benchmark by equity investors, before CRH, which also moved its main listing to the Big Apple in recent years.
Analysts, too, have welcomed
Flutter taking full ownership of FanDuel
last week by buying out Boyd Gaming's 5 per cent stake in a deal that puts a value on the business of about $31 billion.
The focus has now turned to the option that nonagenarian Rupert Murdoch's Fox Corporation has to buy an almost 19 per cent stake in FanDuel. The option runs to 2030. It would currently cost Fox $4.5 billion to trigger and is almost $1.4 billion in the money, based off the $31 billion valuation.
Fox chief executive Lachlan Murdoch put Flutter on notice last autumn that he wants to trigger the stake purchase sooner rather than later – subject to Fox securing a necessary gaming licence.
It could get awkward. Flutter is no longer in the circle of Fox and friends – after their high-profile battle a few years ago on exercise price of the option. Fox, meanwhile, would end up with an illiquid stake in FanDuel. And no control.
A neater solution for everyone would be for Flutter to buy Fox out. But would the Murdochs settle along the lines of the valuation implied by the Boyd deal? Unlikely. Clarity on California, Texas and Florida will be key. That's not coming any time soon.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
13 hours ago
- Irish Times
A lesson from The Godfather as Wall Street backs crypto assets it once dismissed as a ‘fraud'
One of the joys of writing a weekly column is the unusual tributaries explored, often sparked by real-world events. Today I've been watching old clips of The Godfather, in particular Marlon Brando's extraordinary performance as Don Vito, head of the Corleone family. In one of the film's subplots, Vito shuns the narcotics trade, preferring the steady vice of gambling. From a moral position, he rejects family involvement in the more lucrative but dirtier business of drug dealing. Despite the old man's misgivings, eventually his sons get the family into drugs because that is where they'll find new and apparently easy money. Easy money has always been a powerful financial aphrodisiac. Scenes from The Godfather come to mind as we see yet another member of the Wall Street establishment embrace what they had previously shunned: cryptocurrency . This week, one of the world's most important bankers, Jamie Dimon , chief of JPMorgan , who once described crypto as a 'fraud', suggested the bank might use clients' crypto holdings as collateral for loans in dollars. This is a massive U-turn. Meanwhile, Donald Trump, who also previously dismissed cryptocurrencies, has increased his attacks on the Federal Reserve, the institution charged with preserving the integrity of the dollar, the very currency that the crypto enthusiasts see as the problem. For the more extreme advocates of cryptocurrencies the death of the dollar (the world's most successful state-sponsored public money) is the ultimate aim. But for the elected US president, the strength of the dollar – and its institutions – should be the ultimate prize. [ If you want to understand America and politics, read The Godfather Opens in new window ] The prospect of easy money has got in the way, affecting Wall Street's judgment and the president's back pocket. Now they are on a collision course with one of the few, previously immutable signs of American power, the dollar and its custodians. Once more, the lure of quick and easy money is proving too much. READ MORE Cryptocurrencies and the future of money are fascinating topics. A useful way to look at crypto's growth is not as some new form of money, but as a well-financed lobby group. If there is easy money to be made, the quickest way to do this is attack regulators, and ultimately enlist them, while spreading the new gospel. In the beginning, crypto was the ultimate anti-Wall Street phenomenon. Crypto capitalised on an era – after the 2008 crash – when public trust in democratic institutions and markets reached a new low. The promise of crypto was a new democratic, egalitarian and honest form of money, and its manifesto involved a kind of revolutionary appeal – smashing the establishment's hold on finance and opening up the world of money beyond Wall Street. At least, that was the spin. Rather than being issued by allegedly corrupt governments, some cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, are governed by incorruptible algorithms, underpinned by a new technology called blockchain, made possible by the data revolution. Bitcoin in particular, and crypto currencies in general, were supposed to be used to buy stuff – that old 'money as a medium of exchange' thing – but this has not transpired. Instead, it has come to be seen as a store of wealth that many millions of people believe in – which is fair enough if that's what they want to put their financial faith in. Most crypto is nothing more than a private printing press for the TikTok age. Bitcoin has a fixed quantity issued, but it is still nothing more than a financial Pokémon card backed by nothing except hype As its price rises, more people will be attracted to it, despite it having no fundamental value or income accruing to it. How can this be sustained? Well, the best way to keep an asset price inflated is to have more and more people with a stake in it. In time, there will be a significant group of people with an interest in maintaining its value, talking it up. They will lean on regulators to bolster, protect and disseminate it and ultimately drive up or at least maintain its price. The best way to do this is through extended distribution channels. To protect their own wealth, the Bitcoiners have conscripted Wall Street to market Bitcoin to the masses via exchange traded funds, a mechanism that allows investors to buy and sell Bitcoin in greater numbers, and more transparently. Bitcoiners have got into bed with the very firms they once lambasted as corrupt. The original alternative protest investment has gone mainstream. Allying with Wall Street and lobbying regulators is a long way from Bitcoin's original impetus. This was a bet on the complete collapse of the western political order and the end of money. Early adopters were part of a doomsday cult, believing regimes were about to collapse under hyperinflation that would devalue all major currencies. Bitcoin would then emerge as the great saviour. These Armageddonist tendencies mean Bitcoin's more extreme promoters tended to cheerlead political forces that might undermine the West. Finding them on social media applauding regimes such as Putin's Russia is not a surprise. Don't get me wrong – I am not offering financial advice. People can do what they want with their money. My point is that Bitcoin is not money in any definition I understand. Bitcoin is more a financial lobby group than a new form of money. Like most lobby groups, the game is to force its agenda on the authorities to enhance the interests of owners who stand to benefit most. Alarm bells should ring when very rich people – in this case, early adopters who bought Bitcoin for pennies and have therefore become astronomically wealthy – lobby the state to legitimise something intended to be illegitimate, and seek to enlist and enrich Wall Street in the process. [ Bitcoin's real value is based on the greater fool theory Opens in new window ] Never in their wildest dream could crypto promoters have imagined the US president and his sons would become the biggest promoters of a token that sought to undermine the dollar. But that is where we are. In recent months the Trump family has increased its wealthdue to the surge in crypto valuations. The lobby group is running policy. Remember most crypto is nothing more than a private printing press for the TikTok age. Bitcoin is different as it has a fixed quantity issued, but it is still nothing more than a digital token – a financial Pokémon card – backed by nothing except hype. Where the president goes, Wall Street follows: profits drive everything and we get to a point where major investment banks, funds and finance houses are getting behind digital tokens which they once, rightly, dismissed as a fraud. The history of money tells us such episodes rarely end well. See The Godfather. Life imitates art, imitating life. In Trump's America, what is fact and what is fiction have blurred before our very eyes.
Irish Times
15 hours ago
- Irish Times
‘I will not be intimidated': But has Rupert Murdoch met his nemesis in Donald Trump?
Whenever Donald Trump wishes to feel like a young buck again, he need only look at Rupert Murdoch . The Australian-born media mogul has earned the right to be considered a relic of a vanished time for the industry and now, in his tenth decade on earth, he finds himself in the most ferocious legal battle of his life with the former New York construction playboy turned US president. 'I'm 94 years old,' Murdoch was reported as saying about the $10 billion (€8.5 billion) lawsuit Trump's legal team has issued against his prize publication, The Wall Street Journal. 'I will not be intimidated.' In February, images flashed around the world of Murdoch sitting in the Oval Office with Trump: just another billionaire coming to pay homage to the sun king. It had been a busy day in the Oval: foreign royalty, Elon Musk and his son – 'This is X and he's a great guy,' the US president said, introducing the five year old to the press pool. 'A very high IQ' – followed by US treasury secretary Scott Bessent , all in a single cold spring day. Towards the end of the live media session, Trump prompted the camera to focus on two other guests: Murdoch and the billionaire Larry Ellison were in the room, sitting against the wall on modest chairs. The seating arrangement was not by chance. Murdoch looked like a wizened little boy, allowed to watch the big boys play for a treat. READ MORE 'You may have a couple of bucks more,' Trump said cheerfully to Ellison, clarifying the wealth-hierarchy, 'but Rupert is in a class by himself; he's an amazing guy.' Murdoch smiled, but when the moment passed his face turned stony. One of the many contradictions about Trump is that deep down he is a devotee of old media. The magazine covers matter to him in a way that digital publications never can. Whenever any of the prestige 'fake news media' says anything remotely positive about his administration, it will be pointed out by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt at the weekly briefing as a contrary QED: if the fake news media is saying something good, then it must be true. Trump understands Murdoch's twilight world, but he may not fully understand the omnipotence that the Australian felt he possessed back when tabloid culture held political sway in Britain. 'It's the Sun Wot Won It,' the front page of that tabloid crowed after Tory prime minister John Major defeated Labour's Neil Kinnock in the April 1992 general election. Twenty years later, Murdoch, giving evidence at the Leveson inquiry into the phone-hacking scandal which saw the group shut the doors on the 168-year-old News of the World, Murdoch recalled he had given the Sun's editor, Kelvin MacKenzie, 'a hell of a bollocking' over that front-page headline. 'Anti-democratic is too strong a word. It was tasteless and wrong,' he said. Nothing like as tasteless or as wrong, of course, as the depiction of Liverpool football fans after the Hillsborough tragedy in 1989. The Sun, now far from the force in English society that it was then, remains verboten in Liverpool. It is likely it will be 'banned' in that city decades after it has ceased to exist in print form. But Murdoch's newspapers, including the New York Post and the WSJ, are still capable of driving story lines. Last week's publication of the story claiming that Trump had sent a suggestive letter to Jeffrey Epstein as part of a birthday book compilation led to the instant lawsuit. Trump, clearly angered, said he warned the Journal's editor, Emma Tucker, that the letter was not his work. Tucker backed her staff. They decided to publish anyway and have since led other US publications on the story. The media landscape is in the midst of an earthquake. Over the past week, broadcaster CBS's parent company Paramount settled a $16 million lawsuit with Trump, announced that this would be the final season of CBS's flagship late-night satire show with Stephen Colbert and – hey presto – the $8 billion merger between Paramount and Skydance was approved by federal regulators. Fox News is one of the main income drivers now for the Murdoch empire. And it remains the touchstone for hard-core Trump Republicans, who can feast on a series of evening shows lavishing praise on the US president while ridiculing the Democrats and the left in general. Unsurprisingly, the Epstein story has been covered sparingly by its hosts. But Trump has neither forgotten nor fully forgiven the decision by Fox to 'call' the crucial Arizona state against him in the 2020 election. Now the Fox News political hero is suing the owner of Fox News. 'What rich irony that the defence against the latest assault by Trump on press freedom is now in the hands of old crocodile Rupert Murdoch, the very media owner whose Fox News gave us Trump in the first place,' Tina Brown, the writer and former New Yorker and Vanity Fair editor, said in her Substack newsletter. Brown came of age in England when print was king. 'My bet is he won't pay Trump a dime for the Epstein story. Even at a grumpy 94, Murdoch is still a tabloid man to his core. Nothing gets his juices going more than a sex scandal that beats the competition.' There may be trouble ahead.
Irish Times
a day ago
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on handling Donald Trump: a lesson on how to respond
For Donald Trump, the truth, more often than not, is beside the point. So powerful is the US president, and so accustomed are his interlocutors to his casual relationship with facts, that he is rarely challenge as he makes his long and rambling public pronouncements. So it was refreshing to see Jerome Powell, the chair of the US central bank, the Federal Reserve Board, shake his head and publicly correct the record in real time as he stood alongside the president at an event on Thursday. The backdrop was a lengthy campaign by Trump to force the Fed to lower interest rates and his outspoken attempts to try to get Powell to quit. As part of this campaign, the administration has weaponised a renovation programme at the Fed, which it claims is running way over budget. Standing beside Powell in his hard hat, Trump theatrically produced a piece of paper which he said showed that the $2.7 billion bill was now set to be $3.1 billion. Powell calmly studied the note and pointed out that this included the cost of another building that was already completed. 'It's a building that's being built, ' Trump responded. 'No, it was built five years ago,' said Powell. The exchange underlined how seldom Trump's 'facts' are challenged in public by those around him. Everyone wants to humour the unpredictable president. The irony is complete when he publishes posts on his 'Truth Social' channel, a name which carries echoes of the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's 1984. READ MORE World leaders face the same dilemma as Powell did when they stand beside Trump. Most choose to grin and bear it. This is what the EU appears to have done in trade talks with the US, as they face Trump's chaotic mixture of fact and fiction. As the talks come to another crunch – and with the need for support on the Ukraine war in the background – the EU may concede Trump's call for 15 per cent tariffs. When you lead the world's biggest economic and military power, sometimes you get to choose your own facts. A quiet-spoken bureaucrat just gave the world a lesson in how best to respond.
