Due to the holiday season, GamblingCompliance will not be sending out a daily email or updating the website from December 23rd 2009 until January 4th 2010. Best wishes for the festive season and for a prosperous 2010.
Tennis Players Blast ATP’s Anti-Gambling Agreement
A lawsuit filed last week before a US District Court in Fort Lauderdale, Florida claims Interwetten “improperly provided confidential information” to the Florida-based ATP that led to the five players being suspended by tennis’ governing body over the gambling allegations.
The five players – Federico Luzzi, Giorgio Galimberti, Alessio Di Mauro, Potito Starace and Daniele Bracciali – were all suspended by the ATP in early-2008 after the tennis body claimed they violated an agreement not to gamble on the outcome of professional tennis matches as set out by the ATP’s official rulebook.
The players do not contend records that show they each had held online betting accounts with Interwetten and with fellow gambling firm Unibet; instead they argue that they gambled only in small amounts and “for entertainment purposes only”.
As well as claiming damages against Interwetten, they are also suing the ATP over alleged administrative and contractual improprieties in enforcing its own rules – including the way in which they sought to apply an anti-corruption agreement with Interwetten with retroactive effect.
The players first indicated their intention to challenge the ATP and Interwetten in comments made to the Italian press last year.
In the suit filed last week, the players claim they were “discriminately targeted for selective enforcement” of the ATP’s anti-corruption rules “in order to pacify the media and the general public” in the wake of the earlier scandal involving Russian tennis star Nikolay Davydenko. The Davydenko affair came to light after UK-based betting exchange Betfair suspended its market on a game involving the Russian former- world number three at a tournament in Poland in August 2007.
Davydenko has since been cleared of any wrongdoing, but the affair led to intensive media scrutiny on alleged match-fixing in professional tennis that has continued after the Italians’ suspensions in 2008.
The five Italians claim they have suffered financial and reputational loss as a result of their punishment by the ATP. Luzzi died of cancer in October 2008 and is being represented by his estate in the case.
The plaintiffs claim that a January 2007 memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed between the ATP and the online betting industry group the European Sports Security Association (ESSA) – of which Interwetten is a member – did not provide the Malta- and Vienna-based gaming firm the right to supply the prior betting histories of the professional players from before that date.
Lawyers acting on behalf of the Italian tennis pros allege that Interwetten, “knowingly, wilfully, intentionally and maliciously provided information or documentation concerning the [players’] past wagering activities to the [ATP]... in an effort to secure sponsorship opportunities for Interwetten at ATP events.”
The court filing adds: “Upon information and belief, Interwetten’s ability to sponsor future ATP events was considered a quid pro quo in exchange for Interwetten’s agreement to provide information or documentation concerning players/members to the [ATP].”
Interwetten currently sponsors the ATP’s Austrian Open annual tennis tournament. A legal spokesperson for the company told GamblingCompliance Interwetten was not aware of the court filing brought before the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 13.
The spokesperson added that Interwetten’s stated terms and conditions allow the company to disclose personal data to sports authorities and police upon the “slightest indication” of criminal or fraudulent activities.
Representatives for the five tennis players and for ESSA were both unavailable for comment yesterday.
Joseph Kelly, a professor of business law at State University of New York College, Buffalo, said that the nature of last week’s court filing in Florida appeared to be mainly procedural. It was unclear whether the US court would ultimately have jurisdiction over Interwetten in this instance, he added.
The filing states that the case can be heard in the Florida District Court because the players are seeking damages in excess of $75,000 and because Interwetten “interfered with the advantageous business relationship” between the players and the ATP, which is partially based in the state.
The action served against an online gaming operator by the players adds a new dimension to the already fraught legal nexus that exists between the world of tennis and internet betting firms.
But while the Interwetten case looks set to draw issues of sponsorship and anti-corruption codes involving the ATP into the spotlight, fellow ESSA member Unibet has also launched its own legal actions elsewhere in order to protect its right to offer tennis betting against opposition from national tennis authorities in France.
The five players – Federico Luzzi, Giorgio Galimberti, Alessio Di Mauro, Potito Starace and Daniele Bracciali – were all suspended by the ATP in early-2008 after the tennis body claimed they violated an agreement not to gamble on the outcome of professional tennis matches as set out by the ATP’s official rulebook.
The players do not contend records that show they each had held online betting accounts with Interwetten and with fellow gambling firm Unibet; instead they argue that they gambled only in small amounts and “for entertainment purposes only”.
As well as claiming damages against Interwetten, they are also suing the ATP over alleged administrative and contractual improprieties in enforcing its own rules – including the way in which they sought to apply an anti-corruption agreement with Interwetten with retroactive effect.
The players first indicated their intention to challenge the ATP and Interwetten in comments made to the Italian press last year.
In the suit filed last week, the players claim they were “discriminately targeted for selective enforcement” of the ATP’s anti-corruption rules “in order to pacify the media and the general public” in the wake of the earlier scandal involving Russian tennis star Nikolay Davydenko. The Davydenko affair came to light after UK-based betting exchange Betfair suspended its market on a game involving the Russian former- world number three at a tournament in Poland in August 2007.
Davydenko has since been cleared of any wrongdoing, but the affair led to intensive media scrutiny on alleged match-fixing in professional tennis that has continued after the Italians’ suspensions in 2008.
The five Italians claim they have suffered financial and reputational loss as a result of their punishment by the ATP. Luzzi died of cancer in October 2008 and is being represented by his estate in the case.
The plaintiffs claim that a January 2007 memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed between the ATP and the online betting industry group the European Sports Security Association (ESSA) – of which Interwetten is a member – did not provide the Malta- and Vienna-based gaming firm the right to supply the prior betting histories of the professional players from before that date.
Lawyers acting on behalf of the Italian tennis pros allege that Interwetten, “knowingly, wilfully, intentionally and maliciously provided information or documentation concerning the [players’] past wagering activities to the [ATP]... in an effort to secure sponsorship opportunities for Interwetten at ATP events.”
The court filing adds: “Upon information and belief, Interwetten’s ability to sponsor future ATP events was considered a quid pro quo in exchange for Interwetten’s agreement to provide information or documentation concerning players/members to the [ATP].”
Interwetten currently sponsors the ATP’s Austrian Open annual tennis tournament. A legal spokesperson for the company told GamblingCompliance Interwetten was not aware of the court filing brought before the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 13.
The spokesperson added that Interwetten’s stated terms and conditions allow the company to disclose personal data to sports authorities and police upon the “slightest indication” of criminal or fraudulent activities.
Representatives for the five tennis players and for ESSA were both unavailable for comment yesterday.
Joseph Kelly, a professor of business law at State University of New York College, Buffalo, said that the nature of last week’s court filing in Florida appeared to be mainly procedural. It was unclear whether the US court would ultimately have jurisdiction over Interwetten in this instance, he added.
The filing states that the case can be heard in the Florida District Court because the players are seeking damages in excess of $75,000 and because Interwetten “interfered with the advantageous business relationship” between the players and the ATP, which is partially based in the state.
The action served against an online gaming operator by the players adds a new dimension to the already fraught legal nexus that exists between the world of tennis and internet betting firms.
But while the Interwetten case looks set to draw issues of sponsorship and anti-corruption codes involving the ATP into the spotlight, fellow ESSA member Unibet has also launched its own legal actions elsewhere in order to protect its right to offer tennis betting against opposition from national tennis authorities in France.
Quick Search
Search
© Gambling Compliance Ltd 2006 - 2009