“We cannot fail to point out the presence of some obvious critical issues. On this decree we had already asked the Government to regulate the entire market in its entirety. This is because as operators we believe that the greatest guarantee for workers is to have certain and balanced rules as far as possible. This implementing decree identifies the choice to favor a mechanism in the approach that greatly penalizes small and medium-sized enterprises, to the point of leading to the exclusion of at least 50% of operators from the market. If we consider that the cost of the concession was originally 200 thousand euros, today an entry fee 35 times higher is asked for. We understand the need for cash, but thus there is also the risk that less will be collected. Our position on this aspect can therefore only be critical. A lot is lost locally, even online, and this means undermining the certainty that all players will remain on the legal collection network. Big brands have been favored, but this is not enough to say that the rules launched have reached a point of balance. It is clear that we are faced with a simpler decree which does not presuppose the passage to the Unified Conference for an agreement on the rules which today are particularly penalizing for the physical offer, but it is equally true that we find ourselves in a market where there is more and more multi-channel, where the operators themselves are not specialized only on one type of offer. Consequently, the choice to differentiate the tenders will certainly create a situation of imbalance. The hope is that a discussion can be started as soon as possible in the Unified Conference so that certain and homogeneous gaming regulation in Italy can be achieved. We believe that the decree's provision of a maximum amount of 10 euros for topping up the gaming account is too penalizing, as is the maximum limit of 100 euros per week. This risks making a different type of approach to the gaming experience attractive to the user. The merchant, when he does not have a sufficient profit margin, does not have an interesting offer and has excessive limitations, could represent the weak link in the chain and over time become a dangerous own goal for what is the objective of making transparent collection and access to the game. Contrary to popular belief, we are talking about a sector that is still suffering."
He said so Generous Bloise (in the photo), lawyer Sapar, at the hearing in the Senate Finance Committee on the decree to reorganize online gaming.
Below is the joint memorandum signed by Acadi, AsTro, EGP-Fipe and Sapar, released to the Finance Commission after the hearing:
