Around the World: Sports betting’s appeal and the tensions that come along with it

On today's podcast episode, we discuss the size of sports betting markets, what happens when regulation gets too tight, and the potential problems associated with marketing within the gambling universe. Tune in to the discussion with our Principal Analyst and host Bill Fisher, Principal Analyst Paul Briggs, Senior Director of Podcasts Marcus Johnson, and Vice President of Content Paul Verna.

Subscribe to the “Behind the Numbers” podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pandora, Stitcher, YouTube, Podbean or wherever you listen to podcasts. Follow us on Instagram

Episode Transcript:

Marcus Johnson (00:00):

If you would like, eMarketer can be your trusted partner for actionable data and insights on everything, really, but in particular, marketing, advertising, commerce and more. But did you know that eMarketer also has a division focused on B2B media solutions?We do it all. Partner with eMarketer today and connect your brand messaging with our powerful audience. If you would like to learn more, you can, of course, head to a website. It's emarketer.com/advertise.

Bill Fisher (00:29):

Hello, everyone. Welcome to Behind the Numbers Around the World, an eMarketer podcast. It's Monday, November the 25th. I'm your host, Bill Fisher, and it's my pleasure, as it always is, to welcome you all to Around the World. And this month, we're entering the world of sports betting.

(00:51):

Welcome, folks, to a Behind the Numbers show that takes you around the world, looking at what various countries are doing in the worlds of commerce, media and advertising! Each month, we have our Three in Three news recap. Then we have the Roundtable, where we have an open discussion about the main theme for today's show. And we finish it all off with my Recap Stats Quiz. This month, we will be asking, how big is the sports betting market and how big can it become?

Paul Briggs (01:17):

In the year 2023, which is the first year after the legalization, there was a 78% increase in the year two versus year one of wagers on sports betting.

Bill Fisher (01:30):

Can online betting be successfully regulated?

Marcus Johnson (01:33):

Betting and Gaming Council was noting that there are separate studies that show European countries which deployed draconian regulations on betting see a surge in unregulated betting.

Bill Fisher (01:44):

And is there a problematic relationship between sports betting sponsorship and the integrity of the sports they sponsor?

Paul Verna (01:51):

But the clubs are taking money from sports betting firms, and yet, the athletes who are contracted by these clubs are basically using these services and then being penalized for it.

Bill Fisher (02:04):

Okay, I have a few people to help me out. We have a special guest as well today. I'll save his introduction till last. First up, we have our VP of content, and he's special, of course, anyway. It's Paul Verna. Hi, Paul.

Paul Verna (02:20):

Hey, Bill. Great to be here.

Bill Fisher (02:22):

Great to have you on the show again. Next, he's another Paul, equally special. He's our principal analyst for Canada. It's Paul Briggs. Hey, Paul.

Paul Briggs (02:29):

Hey, Bill. Good to be here.

Bill Fisher (02:30):

Good to have the two Pauls back in action. And finally, in a remarkable turn of events, I've coached him from the other side of the mic, he's our senior podcast director and brains behind the whole podcast operation, it's Marcus Johnson. Hello, Marcus.

Marcus Johnson (02:47):

Sorry. This is wildly disappointing for anyone listening. They got really excited, and it's just my voice again.

Bill Fisher (02:54):

I tried to get hyped up for you there.

Marcus Johnson (02:54):

Sorry, yeah.

Bill Fisher (02:56):

I did it for my best.

Marcus Johnson (02:56):

Yeah. You did as good as you could have done, mate, but happy to be here.

Bill Fisher (03:00):

It's great to have you on the show, and thanks for doing it for me.

Marcus Johnson (03:02):

Of course.

Bill Fisher (03:02):

Okay.

Marcus Johnson (03:04):

Had no choice.

Bill Fisher (03:05):

Before we get into this episode proper... There's always a choice, Marcus. Before we get into this episode proper, let me introduce you to this month's culture shock. And we are looking at lucky and unlucky numbers. Give me a lucky or unlucky number, folks.

Marcus Johnson (03:20):

Lucky number seven.

Bill Fisher (03:22):

Number seven. Okay. Seven is viewed as lucky in most of the West because various things, seven days of the week, Seven Wonders of the World. That's the sort of connotation that tends to bring numbers into lucky and unlucky fields. But in Thailand, seven is unlucky because the seventh month of the year is the ghost month. That's when the dead are said to rise from hell and visit Earth, so not always a lucky number.

Paul Verna (03:52):

That seems to happen pretty much every month in the US.

Marcus Johnson (03:58):

Where do you live, Paul?

Bill Fisher (04:02):

Half of this month.

(04:02):

Another number, 13, unlucky, right? Relates to things like the Last Supper. Judas was the 13th guest. In Norse mythology as well, Loki was the 13th guest at the Feast of Valhalla. I don't know if you knew that. But in China, 13 is considered lucky. It translates to assured growth, which is generally a good thing.

(04:25):

And finally, number three might be the magic number, according to De La Soul. All good things come in threes, three wishes. Again, all these positive connotations. But in Vietnam, there's an ancient superstition that means people don't like the number three. And in fact, people don't have photos taken in groups of three because they think that the middle person is believed to be at risk of a terrible fate. And that's because the number three is important in Buddhist and Taoist teachings, and people consider it to be out of bounds for mere mortals.

Paul Verna (04:57):

I must say, and Marcus probably doesn't know this, but three is a very lucky number in Argentina-

Marcus Johnson (05:02):

Oh, for crying out loud.

Paul Verna (05:03):

... because it's the number of World Cups that we have won as of 2022.

Marcus Johnson (05:07):

He brings this up-

Bill Fisher (05:08):

Let's move on.

Marcus Johnson (05:08):

... every day. Thank you.

Paul Verna (05:09):

Nice to have you, Marcus, as a co-guest.

Marcus Johnson (05:12):

I'm leaving. Goodbye.

Bill Fisher (05:13):

Don't leave. Let's get into our news segment.

Marcus Johnson (05:14):

Let's do it.

Bill Fisher (05:15):

Something we call Three in Three. I have three interesting and related news stories. I'm going to introduce in turn one story to one guest. They're going to give me their very quick take. Between the two of us, we're going to do it in a minute. So three stories in three minutes. The timer is set. Let's go.

(05:34):

Story one is for Paul Briggs. And a low-cost airline enters the UK online betting market. Last month, easyGroup, the conglomerate that counts low cost airline easyJet among its businesses, launched easyBet, a new online sports betting brand. Paul, is online sports betting open to anyone now?

Paul Briggs (05:53):

I think it is. The question is, is it viable? So I haven't seen this type of development in other markets, to be honest, certainly not in Canada, where a company in an adjacent industry or an unrelated industry tries to offer a solution for sports betting. So to me, I think it is open, but I really question the viability of these companies operating in the space.

Bill Fisher (06:16):

Good point. Thanks for that, Paul. That was our first story. Story two is for Paul Verna, and a record take for combat sports. You may have heard about the latest Netflix hit, Jake Paul versus Mike Tyson. It was a big night for Netflix and boxing, but it was an even bigger night for the betting industry, with BetMGM stating it was the most bet-on combat sport event in history. Paul, are events like this further normalizing sports betting?

Paul Verna (06:43):

I think they are. We look at this Mike Tyson-Jake Paul fight as not great in the realm of the quality of the fight itself, not great for Netflix because they had a lot of dropouts during this stream. But the reality is this is going to be the future for a lot of sports streaming companies and companies like Netflix. And part of what's driving it is the intense interest, and I think we see that in the betting markets. So definitely expect more of this and maybe even more tie-ups between the media companies and the betting firms, which we've already seen some of that.

Bill Fisher (07:19):

We just need better fights, I think.

Paul Verna (07:22):

Yes, we do.

Bill Fisher (07:22):

It was dreadful. Thanks, Paul. That was story two. And finally, story three is for Marcus. And the online betting black market surges in the UK. A recent study from Frontier Economics commissioned by the Betting and Gaming Council found that Brits gambled away 2.7 billion pounds on illegal, unregulated online sites in the past year. Marcus, how important, or indeed effective, is betting regulation?

Marcus Johnson (07:47):

Yeah, it's important for a ton of reasons. Number one, it's important to have it be regulated to keep underaged folks away from it. In a lot of states in the US, you have to be 21 to bet. There's one exception. Oregon, I think minimum age there is 18. So it's important for that reason. It's important to make sure that betting operations have been vetted and that they have licenses so we know who these betting companies are.

(08:12):

It's important for tax revenues. In that article from the Betting and Gaming Council that you circulated, they know, the researchers found the vast sums bet on the gambling black market online and offline could deprive the Treasury of up to 330 million pounds, or $420 million, over the course of a five-year parliament if no action is taken. Put another way, they say that's the equivalent of 1,700 nurses' salaries, 1.2 million extra GP consultations, or up to 1,500 teacher salaries. So it's a lot of money.

(08:46):

And then finally, it's important... or there's a lot more reasons, but one last one, it's important for sports funding. Regulated betting and gaming industry also provides sports like horse racing, football, soccer, rugby, et cetera, with tens of millions of dollars in funding. So a whole host of reasons why it's important to have it regulated.

Bill Fisher (09:03):

Good points. Thanks, Marcus. And that wraps up our Three in Three for this month.

(09:08):

And now it's time for the main part of the show, what we call the Roundtable. This is where we dig a little bit deeper into these stories. Lots of overlap between these stories as well. But before we do start looking into them specifically, I wonder if we can have a go at sizing the market and sizing the market opportunity. Relatively underdeveloped in the US, Paul Verna, right now, but how... Well, how big is it now? How big can it become as it becomes more opened to the public?

Paul Verna (09:40):

Sports betting has been legal in the US effectively since 2018. And in that time, this business has just skyrocketed. This year, we will see over 145 billion in the total sports betting handle in the US. That's the amount of money that's wagered. And that translates to sports betting revenues of about 13 billion. So obviously, the amount in revenue is a fraction of the money that's actually wagered. So we can talk about a market size, say, in terms of the revenues around 13 billion, but that's going to go up to close to 18 billion by 2026. And again, this has gone from virtually zero in 2018.

(10:19):

So it's a vast market and one where I think we're just going to see continued growth as more states come online. Not every state in the US has authorized legal gambling, including some very populous states. So if and when those come on board, it will further change the dynamic. But what we're expecting right now is that growth from basically 13 billion to close to 18 within two years.

Marcus Johnson (10:45):

To Paul's point quickly, so there was a Supreme Court ruling in 2018 that gave sports betting its blessing, and it repealed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992. Since then, 38 states and Washington, DC have allowed some form of betting, retail or online sports betting. That's where it got started. And to what Paul was saying, yeah, in terms of bettors, it was 10 million people who were online sports bettors according to our forecast in 2019. Next year, that'll be 50 million. So it's increased fivefold in that time span.

Bill Fisher (11:20):

What's the landscape in Canada, Paul?

Paul Briggs (11:22):

It's similar to the US. It's a little bit... It trails by a couple of years. So in 2021, the federal government opened up or allowed the provinces to legalize single-event betting. And only one province of note, the biggest province, Ontario, did so in April 2022. And what we've seen since then is tremendous growth in terms of the wagering. We're looking at... In the year 2023, which is the first year after the legalization, there was a 78% increase in the year two versus year one of wagers on sports betting. In terms of revenue, it was a 72% increase.

(11:59):

So it's a fast-moving market. It's only really a couple years old in Ontario. The other provinces control it through a centralized provincial website, but in Ontario, it's kind of the wild west. You have 45 or so companies operating here in Ontario, and there's like 70, close to 80 individual apps from those companies that are available in the market. So it is pretty much a fast-growing, and it's becoming a very controversial topic, to be quite honest, which I know we're going to get into in a little bit.

Bill Fisher (12:31):

Marcus, you have a British accent. I brought you on board to talk about the UK, but you don't have any numbers for the UK for me, do you?

Marcus Johnson (12:37):

Haven't got a clue.

Bill Fisher (12:38):

No? Good job I do, then, isn't it?

Marcus Johnson (12:40):

You live there. [inaudible 00:12:44].

Bill Fisher (12:44):

The UK market is an interesting market, because it may augur what's going to happen in markets like the US and Canada, because gambling was legalized much earlier, mid-'90s, I think it was. Much smaller market, obviously, the UK, in terms of population size and so on. But according to the Gambling Commission, in 2023, 15 billion-pound market in terms of total gross gambling yield, so a really mature market in the UK.

(13:18):

And if we look, as Paul mentioned, where the US numbers are headed, we're looking at massive potential here. But as Paul Briggs mentioned, there are issues. We touched upon regulation. It has been pretty tight in many places around the world. Things are beginning to open up, and the UK story about unregulated betting implies that regulation can only be relatively successful. Marcus, you talked about how important regulation is, but it's clearly failing to a degree.

Marcus Johnson (13:50):

Yeah.

Bill Fisher (13:50):

How successful can regulation ever really be?

Marcus Johnson (13:53):

It is tough because you have to strike the right balance here. And something in that piece, which I thought was of note, is, as I mentioned, regulation can bring in tax revenues and sports funding, and it's important to have it for those reasons, as well as to keep younger people away from it until they're of the right age.

(14:10):

However, Betting and Gaming Council was noting that there are separate studies that show European countries which deployed draconian regulations on betting see a surge in unregulated betting. They gave an example, restrictions in Norway resulting in a black market that now accounts for 2/3 of all money staked. I think in Hungary, it was like half of the market is unregulated. So it is a very difficult task to try to find the right balance between regulation and not trying to force too many people onto the black markets.

Bill Fisher (14:42):

And is there an overlap here? So we talked about the Mike Tyson-Jake Paul fight, right? Jake Paul, an online influencer, has a very young audience. Is this going to get younger people into gambling, and are they going to be trying to circumvent the regulation and laws?

Paul Briggs (15:00):

I think that's the big concern. I know in Canada, regulations are in the works and near completion to regulate sports betting advertising. Let me just read this. It's a bit of a mouthful. It's an act called the National Framework on Advertising for Sports Betting, and a big part of that is to protect minors from exposure to these ads and also to put it in the same class as alcohol and tobacco, which are very addictive.

(15:24):

So the gambling addiction that seems to be a big risk or a harm in the UK, that's certainly where a lot of the anti-betting lobbyists point to, is the UK, for the harms that are evident there, to really promote the fact that regulation is needed. So I think that question about minors, Bill, is a really important one.

Marcus Johnson (15:44):

So what Paul was saying just now, though, about it being an addictive quality is an odd paradox happening where this is, gambling at least, is a space that a lot of folks have dabbled in. Betting is a very familiar pastime for many people before this explosion of sports betting. The School of Public Health and Health Sciences at UMass Amherst said of as of 2022, over 70% of US residents had participated in some kind of gambling, lottery, raffle, cards, sports wagers, within the past year.

(16:16):

So a lot of people gamble in some form or fashion and did so right before this 2018 ruling which made it legal across a big part of the country, and now that's why it really exploded, but a lot of the regulation and the focus in the conversation around addiction hasn't quite caught up with that. And there was some research saying that federal agencies devoted to drug and alcohol abuse and related research, there are those, but there is no federal institute for problem gambling research.

(16:46):

The census or the CDC don't ask, neither of them ask about gaming in the national surveys that track the trends in other mental health issues or drug or alcohol use. So it seems like regulation and the stigma in the conversation around problem gambling hasn't caught up with how big this market has become.

Bill Fisher (17:03):

Yeah. Doesn't help when a lot of these online sports gambling companies are becoming big sponsors. So we've had numerous issues in the UK where big Premier League clubs have been emblazoned with online sports betting firms on the front of their jerseys, on the front of their shirts. And the negative press that this has caused has actually forced some of these clubs to take that sponsorship off their shirts, because there's an issue here, right? I mean, how do you balance this? Obviously, sports organizations want the sponsorship, but to then have the negative press around this involvement of sports gambling companies, how do they balance that?

Paul Verna (17:50):

Yeah, and I think in the US, we've seen some counterpart to that, not necessarily with jersey sponsorships because those aren't as big a thing here, but just in terms of the amount of advertising on sports broadcasts that the sports betting sector accounts for, which we don't have numbers for it, we don't track it. But anecdotally, I think anyone who watches live sports in the US is being bombarded with ads from betting companies. Interesting that many of those ads now start with a disclaimer right off the bat. So that tells you that there's a tension between the business that these companies are generating and the potential ramifications on a societal basis.

(18:35):

What's also interesting, and this is not just in the US, but more and more athletes themselves are getting caught up in betting and being penalized by their clubs. So their clubs are taking money from sports betting firms, and yet the athletes who are contracted by these clubs are basically using these services and then being penalized for it. So there are a lot of conflicts that are definitely unresolved right now. And I think, to Marcus's point, until the government starts regulating sports gambling in the same way that they regulate some of these other things like alcohol and drugs, I think we're going to see those tensions continue to play out.

Paul Briggs (19:19):

I think there is a double standard with these leagues and their approach to betting. Back 10 years ago or so, the NFL was probably the lone major sport in North America where betting was apparent and very part of the experience, but now it's across all leagues. And I think that has to do with the future of sports viewership. So with betting, with betting on single sports outcomes, betting on a wide variety of bets within the game, it does attract a younger audience. So the future of sports viewership may depend increasing the experience or enhancing the experience, which involves betting on the game.

Bill Fisher (19:19):

That's a great point.

Paul Briggs (19:57):

That's where I think the leagues are kind of looking to the future, looking 10 years down the road on how they're going to maintain their viewership and property rights values. So I think that's a big part of what's happening.

Paul Verna (20:09):

Yeah. And I would add to that, Paul, that the NCAA and March Madness has been a fixture of betting to the point that offices have their betting pools. So that's been a thing for decades. And I think that brings the conversation into the realm of education, not just professional sports, which can also be problematic because you have younger and younger people being exposed to sports betting ads and having access to apps that superpower the betting process. So there's a lot to unpack with this, but I don't think it's exclusive to professional sports. I think it's also a big factor in college sports in the US as well.

Marcus Johnson (20:53):

Bill, you were saying that there are a number of Premier League clubs that remove sports betting companies from their shirt sponsor following negative press. Was there one incident that triggered this, or has it just been a gradual thing?

Bill Fisher (21:03):

I think it's been a gradual thing. I mean, there's often press around the negative aspects of sports betting. You've mentioned all the issues, and just association with these firms has brought the negative sentiment with them to the club.

Marcus Johnson (21:20):

Yeah. And I can only imagine it's going to get worse and worse because... So we're talking about problem gambling, and I went and looked at a definition of that. California Department of Public Health said it's the uncontrollable urge to gamble despite negative consequences in a person's life.

(21:33):

And Rachel Volberg at UMass Amherst, she's a professor there, she studies this for over 30 years. She was saying that in 2013, she found that 2% of Americans were classified as problem gamblers. That's 5 million US adults. A further 8% were at risk of becoming problem gamblers. That's about 21 million people. In 2021, as we mention these numbers, 21 million people were sports bettors. Today, twice as many are. So I imagine those numbers are higher. And from 2018 to 2021, the share of folks who sought financial help due to gambling went from 2% to 6% according to National Council on Problem Gambling.

(22:10):

And that was, again, 2021. The space is only getting bigger and bigger, so it is this... Gambling addiction will be the growing elephant in the room for a while, I think.

Bill Fisher (22:20):

Really interesting discussion, folks. But that is all we've got time for, because now it's time for my favorite bit of the show. It's the Recap Stats Quiz. This is where we recap today's theme with a few loosely related stats questions. There's no prize. You get it from this side of the table now, Marcus. It's disappointing.

Marcus Johnson (22:41):

No, I'm fine with it, actually.

Bill Fisher (22:43):

[inaudible 00:22:43].

Marcus Johnson (22:42):

Others complain, Bill. I'm just happy to be here and participate.

Bill Fisher (22:47):

Good. I'm happy to hear it.

Marcus Johnson (22:48):

I'm kidding, [inaudible 00:22:49].

Bill Fisher (22:49):

Anyway, only three questions, multiple choice, nice and quick. I'm going to ask each of you to send me your answers separately so there's no room for influence. And the first question is related to betting odds. In 2008, a fertilizer salesman from North Yorkshire in England placed a 50-pence bet. What's that, about 60 cents? 60, 70 cents, something like that? It was an eight-horse accumulator bet. That means that you bet on eight different races. He picked the winner for each race, and the odds for each obviously stack up, so massive odds.

(23:22):

The question was, how much did he win from a 50-pence bet? Was it A, 76,000 pounds? Was it B, 1 million pounds, or C, 1.5 million pounds? Okay, the answers are in. If you had said 76,000 pounds, you would've been incorrect. $76,000 was won by an anonymous punter in the US on a 10-cents bet. This was a superfecta bet. This requires... You can't change your answer halfway through, Marcus. That is cheating.

Marcus Johnson (23:58):

What? Oh, hang on. Sorry.

Paul Verna (24:01):

And busted.

Marcus Johnson (24:02):

That was-

Paul Verna (24:02):

He's busted.

Marcus Johnson (24:04):

... I don't know, Slack's down, Slack's messed up.

Bill Fisher (24:06):

Anyway, $76,000 was won by an anonymous punter on a 10-cent bet. This was a superfecta bet, which requires the bettor to predict the first four horses in a race in the exact order. So not a bad return on 10 cents, $76,000.

(24:21):

If you'd have said 1.5 million pounds, that was incorrect. This is what Steve Whiteley won in 2011 on a six-race accumulator bet of two pounds. The funny thing about this is he couldn't even afford to get into the race. He managed to blag a free ticket, and he could only afford that one bet, and he went home with 1.5 million pounds.

(24:39):

The correct answer was B, 1 million pounds. The odds, if you can work it out, 2 million to one. And get this, the winner of the first race that he correctly predicted, the horse was called Isn't That Lucky. Quite.

Marcus Johnson (24:54):

1.2 million?

Bill Fisher (24:55):

1 million.

Marcus Johnson (24:56):

1 million...

Bill Fisher (24:58):

Pounds, from a two-pound bet. And after that first round, discounting late votes and changed votes-

Marcus Johnson (25:08):

Verna.

Bill Fisher (25:08):

... we have a leader. It's Paul Briggs.

Marcus Johnson (25:10):

Paul [inaudible 00:25:10].

Bill Fisher (25:10):

Well done, Paul.

Paul Briggs (25:11):

All right.

Bill Fisher (25:12):

And onto question two. And we are looking at the huge potential sports betting audiences and the Mike Tyson versus Jake Paul boxing match. It broke records recently. Paul Verna talked about the problems, but it did become the most livestreamed sports event ever. It helped that it was broadcasted live only on Netflix, but what was the average minute audience across the fight? So this is the average number of viewers for each minute of programming. Was it A, 65 million? Was it B, 108 million, or was it C, 125 million? Okay. The numbers are locked in. Marcus, no changing your vote now.

Marcus Johnson (25:13):

Wouldn't dream of it.

Bill Fisher (25:53):

Okay, if you'd said 65 million, that would've been incorrect. That was the peak number of concurrent streams. Obviously, lots of people watching those streams, so it's a bigger number than that. 125 million, that was the average minute viewing audience into the weekend, including the live plus one viewing. So the answer was B, again, 108 million. And it accounted for 56% of all US TV viewing between 12:00 AM and 1:00 Eastern Time. Fancy that.

Marcus Johnson (26:25):

Wow.

Bill Fisher (26:26):

Okay, we have a tie for the lead now, the two Pauls. Marcus, you've got to try harder. You've got one chance left.

Marcus Johnson (26:35):

I tried changing my answer. It didn't work.

Bill Fisher (26:38):

For our final question, I'm bringing you on a downer here. We're looking at the huge downsides that gambling brings. In Australia, gambling is a significant societal issue. Estimates suggest that Australians lose 25 billion Australian dollars on legal forms of gambling each year. But what is affected most by an individual's gambling habits? This is a survey reported by the Australian government. So what's most affected? Is it A, relationships, is it B, health, or is it C, finances?

Paul Briggs (27:13):

I guess there is no all of the above there, Bill?

Bill Fisher (27:16):

Well, they were all cited by sizable proportions. Numbers are locked in. Finances was actually fourth on the list, 16%, which is odd given that it's all about finances. Health came in second, 21%, but relationships were top. 25% of respondents stated that their relationships were affected. Obviously, it's not just the gambler who is affected, of course.

(27:40):

So well done, Marcus. You got on the scoreboard. You waited till the end to get your singular point.

Marcus Johnson (27:40):

It's a late surge.

Bill Fisher (27:46):

But you have been beaten this week by the two Pauls. And it is a tie, which I always like because it means I can use my potential tie-break, and Paul Briggs can see how far away from this he can get. It's a freeform answer.

Marcus Johnson (28:02):

Fine, I'll join in.

Paul Briggs (28:03):

Oh, boy. Oh, boy.

Marcus Johnson (28:04):

Force me.

Bill Fisher (28:06):

So again, let me know privately for the two Pauls, and the question is this.

Marcus Johnson (28:07):

I'm on it.

Bill Fisher (28:12):

Very simple, this. What's the biggest ever sports betting payout in US dollars? Just give me a number. Marcus has had a go as well.

Marcus Johnson (28:24):

It's the participation, isn't it?

Bill Fisher (28:26):

Yeah, okay. You sound like my kid's primary school. It's all about the taking part, all that kind of nonsense.

Marcus Johnson (28:35):

[inaudible 00:28:35].

Bill Fisher (28:36):

Okay, so the answers are locked in. There is a clear winner. It's quite a big number, this. The biggest payout ever was $75 million.

Paul Verna (28:48):

Jeez.

Bill Fisher (28:49):

It was from a very big stake. So this was Texas furniture mogul, Jim McIngvale, or Mattress Mack as he's known. He won this on his bet that the Houston Astros would win the World Series in 2022. His stake was $10 million. So he got odds of 7.5 to one, so quite the stake. But the good news is that the guy then... He gave back. So I think it was something like, anyone who had bought any furniture from him in the past couple of months, they could just ask for their money back, and he gave it all back to them. So how about that?

Marcus Johnson (29:27):

Wow.

Bill Fisher (29:28):

Nice.

Marcus Johnson (29:29):

75 million. If you've got 10 million-

Bill Fisher (29:32):

75 million. You're quite a way out, Marcus.

Marcus Johnson (29:32):

... just invest it.

Bill Fisher (29:35):

So even if you were involved, you know you wouldn't have won this.

Marcus Johnson (29:37):

Yeah, it's true.

Bill Fisher (29:38):

But we do have a winner.

Paul Briggs (29:40):

I figured it had to be a high roller, some high roller that just had money to burn and was making a statement.

Marcus Johnson (29:46):

High-yield savings account. That's what he needs.

Bill Fisher (29:51):

Paul's the winner. Paul, which Paul? Paul Briggs. Well done, Paul. Two in a row.

Paul Briggs (29:55):

All right.

Bill Fisher (29:56):

This is incredible.

Paul Briggs (29:56):

The streak has now been established. All right.