GPWA Times Magazine - Issue 28 - April 2014

DeconstructingAbboud HowAndyAbboud isworking toexpediteSheldonAdelson’s campaign towipeonlinegamingoff theAmericanmap ByVinNarayanan LAS VEGAS – In March, Andy Abboud walked into the iGaming NorthAmerica conference knowing thatmost of thepeo- ple in attendancedidn't like him, ormore precisely, didn't likehis boss'spolitics. As the vice president for government relations for the Las Vegas Sands Corp., Abboud represents the interests of his boss, LasVegas SandsChairman Sheldon Adelson. Adelson opposes online gam- ing and is funding a massive campaign to ban all forms of it in the U.S. Adelson is theworld's fifth-richest person, accord- ing to Forbes, with a net worth of about $37billion. Adelson has promised to spend as much money as it takes at both the federal and state levels to ban online gaming, and he means it. He spent at least $98 million on the 2012 elections, according to Pro Publica,muchof it on losing causes. So asAbboud took to the stage to debate themerits of online gamingwithCaesars Interactive CEO Mitch Garber, a polite but borderline hostile crowd waited for Abboud todefend thehypocrisyof aman whomakes his billions throughgambling establishments – including profits from mobile gaming within his casinos and mobile sportsbetting throughout the state ofNevada –yet opposes onlinegaming. ButAbboud didn't fashion a coherent ar- gument against online gaming. Instead, he threw everything at the wall to see whatwould stick.Asa legislative strategy –which iswhatAbboud is reallyworried about – this is afine tactic.Keep throwing out arguments until you find one that a politicianwill agree with. It doesn't mat- ter that the arguments, when taken in to- tality, conflictwith eachother. In fact, it's the same legislative strategy and set of arguments (except for one) that opponents of brick-and-mortar casinos have used to prevent expansion of land- basedgaming in theU.S. Abboud's arguments: 1. Bad actors can't bekept out 2. Online gaming will destroy brick-and- mortar casinos 3. Underagegaming can't be stopped 4.Money launderingwill be aproblem 5. Cheating can't be stopped The irony of using the same arguments thatwereusedagainst land-based casinos to try to stop online gaming appeared to be lost onAbboud, however. Fordecades, opponents of land-based gaming have maintained casinos were gambling dens with ties to organized crime, a front for laundering criminal money and a place where the games were dishonest and the youth preyed upon. Abboudmade these arguments with an earnestness that indi- catedhewaseitherunawareof thehistory of casino gaming in America, or he was hopinghis audiencewas. ButAbboud is clearly aware of thehistory of casino expansion in theU.S. It's impos- sible to work in government relations in the casino industry and not know how gamblingopponents try to stop casino leg- islation. Sohe's banking onhis audience – whetheronlinegamingexecutivesatacon- ference or politicians he's lobbying – to be unaware of the arguments used to oppose theexpansionofbrick-and-mortar casinos. Americanpublicpolicy regarding casinos is based on a law-and-order foundation. Casinos need to be strictly regulated to prevent organized crime from operating or profiting from them. Abboud has up- dated that argument for onlinegaming. "I'mnotworried about theMitchGarbers of the world," Abboud told the iGam- ing North America crowd. "It's every- one else, including PokerStars, Facebook andZynga." Abboud,alongwithmuchoftheAmerican casino industry, views PokerStars as a criminal operation that should never be allowed todobusiness in theU.S. again. Part of this is a market-based worry. PokerStarshas thebestonlinepokerprod- uct in theworld, and players desperately want toplayon it. Another part of this is personal. The li- censing of casino executives in theU.S. is an intrusiveprocess. The livesof theexec- utives, their familiesand friendsareclose- ly scrutinized. Fifty-page applications are considered short. Investigations are long. Countless hours and thousands of dollars are spent acquiring licenses. The fact that PokerStars operated in theU.S. without a license bothers casinos executives. It bugs them that PokerStars didn't have to go through the same scrutiny they did, and they don't want PokerStars back in the U.S. as a result. And that'swhereAbboud'sargument falls apart. Caesars andMGM andBoyddon't want bad actors in the American mar- ket. They're in complete agreement with Abboud on this point. These companies wantaclean, regulatedenvironmentdom- inated by the current land-based casinos. So ifAbboud says he's okaywithCaesars andMGM running online gaming opera- tions, why is he pursuing federal legisla- tion toban it?Whynot justpursue legisla- tion that leaves it in the hands of a select 34 DeconstructingAbboud