Flutter weighs Illinois tax impact
Paddy Power
owner
Flutter
is weighing how it will react to a betting tax imposed by state legislators in Illinois in the US.
The US state's budget includes a 25 cents tax on every individual bet taken up to the first 20 million wagers, and 50 cents each past that point.
Dublin-based Flutter's biggest subsidiary is Fanduel in the US, which has been expanding as individual states legalise sports betting.
Speaking after its annual general meeting in Dublin on Thursday, Peter Jackson, chief executive, said that it would 'figure out' how to react and whether to pass the charge on to customers.
READ MORE
He noted that betting was not the only industry affected.
Analysts speculate that it could cost Flutter tens of millions of dollars.
Maryland is increasing its betting tax to 20 per cent from 15 per cent this month while other states are also considering raising their levies.
The company moved its primary listing to the New York Stock Exchange last year, exiting the Dublin Euronext market at the same time.
Mr Jackson said that the group was very pleased with the outcome despite reports that the volatility sparked by president Donald Trump's frequent policy shifts had put some investors off the US market.
He added that there had been a 'step up' in liquidity there.
Mr Jackson did not comment on the Irish Competition and Consumer Protection Commission's recent announcement that it had begun an investigation of the betting industry.
That move included dawn raids on business offices by commission staff, accompanied by Gardaí.
Flutter last month cautioned that a run of sports results favouring customers could affect US profits this year.
Mr Jackson stressed that Flutter was comfortable with the odds it offered customers, which ultimately determine its risk. 'We're very confident in our pricing,' he said.
Flutter has businesses in the Republic, UK, Europe, the Americas and Australia.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
Oireachtas should slam down gavel on judges' planned 16.7% injury awards hike
The introduction in April 2021 of judicial guidelines on personal injury awards had an immediate and sharp effect – with the median value of compensation awarded by the Injuries Resolution Board (IRB) falling 46 per cent to €10,000 in the eight months that followed. The guidelines were also aimed at creating more consistency in awards, regardless of whether they were resolved directly with an insurer, the IRB, or through the courts. The problem is, there is no comprehensive data available from the courts on awards – not helped by a dearth of written judgments at District and Circuit Court levels – for anyone to make such an assessment. Either way, an all-too-high number of claimants – encouraged, no doubt, by their lawyers – continue to think they can fare better going down the legal route than settling through the IRB. Figures published by the board last month show that while the motor crash claimants consenting to being assessed by the IRB in the first instance rose from 62 per cent to 78 per cent between 2020 and last year, the acceptance rate of awards from the board fell marginally, to 47 per cent. [ Judges expected to support draft guidelines for 16.7% rise in personal injuries awards Opens in new window ] The board of the judicial council, required by law to review the guidelines every three years, proposed in December that payouts increase by 16.7 per cent. This was adopted by the council of the State's judges in late January and passed over to the Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan, who must put the amendments before Houses of the Oireachtas for approval. READ MORE There is an expectation that the minister will bring the proposal before the Oireachtas before the summer recess. The planned blanket hike has been met with resistance from insurers and business lobby groups, who know that the increase will be passed directly on to consumers and companies. Motorists, who had seen insurance premiums fall by 25 per cent between 2017 and 2022, have already stomached rate increases in more recent years as car parts and labour inflation have driven up damage costs. The guidelines review was a crude exercise, with the committee of judges that carried it out applying the general Irish inflation rate to existing awards guidelines. The judicial council even said at the time that the committee 'did not find it possible to carry out any meaningful analysis of the quantum of court awards given under the guidelines that might inform this review'. Nor does there appear to have been any regard given to what's going on elsewhere. The going rate under the existing guidelines for minor neck injuries, where recovery is made within six months, is up to €3,000, 5½ times higher than that in the UK – where awards are among the highest in Europe. [ Is going to court worth it for personal injuries claimants? A lawyer and insurer go head to head on the issue Opens in new window ] 'The large disparity is before the 16.7 per cent increase proposed by the judicial council, which, if introduced, will make the gap even larger,' Aviva Insurance Ireland said in submission last month to the Department of Finance, which is weighing further insurance reforms. 'Comparing Aviva's claims in the UK and Ireland, attritional claims like whiplash represent 30 per cent of the cost of motor insurance premium in Ireland compared to 10 per cent of premium in the UK in 2024 and lower still in Europe.' TDs and senators should reject the planned amendments and push it back to the judiciary to go back to the drawing board. Their key role was inadvertently copper-fastened by a Waterford woman, Bridget Delaney, who mounted a challenge three years ago against the constitutionality of the guidelines. The Supreme Court ruled in April last year that it had been, indeed, unconstitutional to give the judicial council the power to set personal injury guidelines. However, the fact that the initial guidelines were subsequently independently approved by legislators gave them legal effect. The unsophisticated way that the judiciary has gone about reviewing the guidelines suggests they need some help. The IRB argued in its submission to the Department of Finance consultation said that judicial council be required to liaise with it on any future amendments. 'The board's expertise, practical experience, and annual assessment of nearly 10,000 cases annually would meaningfully contribute to the continued relevance, fairness, and effectiveness of the guidelines,' it said. Various submissions called for future guidelines to be benchmarked against European countries. 'Legal expenses and award levels for lower-value claims remain disproportionately high and are not aligned with those observed in the UK and other European jurisdictions,' said German insurance giant Allianz's Irish unit. A number, including the Alliance for Insurance Reform, a lobby group for business and civic organisations, and the IRB said the current requirement that the guidelines be reviewed very three years does not allow them to be embedded. 'Under the current guidelines model, there could be several versions of the guidelines in use dependent on whether a claim has already been assessed or if legal proceedings have been initiated,' said the IRB, which reckons it should be extended to every five years. 'A situation cannot exist whereby the same injury, the same claim, that has been rejected within the Injuries Resolution Board goes into the court system and a different set of guidelines is used to value compensation.' While the setting up of the IRB back in 2004 (then known as the Personal Injuries Assessment Board) was meant to do away with the need for solicitors, 95 per cent of claimants that end up before it are represented by lawyers. The board suggests legal fees now need to be brought into cases its handles. 'The board is aware that in some cases the issue of legal fees becomes an impediment to the acceptance of an IRB award,' it said. There's disquiet in Government, too, about the judges' review process. Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe is known to have expressed concern to the Minister for Justice about the knock-on effect of such a large hike to businesses and households. Colm Brophy, Minister of State at the Department of Justice, told the Seanad last month that his boss is looking at what legislative amendments 'can be made to make further reviews of the personal injuries guidelines more inclusive and transparent'. This may include 'making changes to the mechanism and the timing of future reviews of the guidelines', he said. This will not go down well with the judiciary. But it has only itself to blame.
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Trump warns Musk of ‘very serious consequences' if he backs Democrats
Donald Trump warned Elon Musk that he faces 'very serious consequences' if he funds Democratic candidates following the pair's epic public bust-up this week. The warning, delivered in an interview with NBC News set to broadcast on Sunday, follows days of feuding and threats after Musk called Republicans' budget legislation an 'abomination'. Mr Trump told interviewer Kristen Welker his relationship with the tech mogul was over and warned Mr Musk against choosing to fund Democrats after spending close to $300 million (€355 million) in support of Mr Trump's re-election last year. 'If he does, he'll have to pay the consequences for that,' Trump told NBC News. 'He'll have to pay very serious consequences if he does that,' he said. READ MORE [ Keith Duggan: Bromance descends into jaw-dropping feud Opens in new window ] Mr Trump was also asked if he had any wish to repair his relationship with Musk. 'No,' he said. Asked if he thought their relationship was over, he said, 'I would assume so, yeah,' and had no plans to speak with his erstwhile sidekick. 'I'm too busy doing other things,' Mr Trump said. 'I have no intention of speaking to him.' Elon Musk with President Donald Trump during a joint news conference in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, in May. Photograph: Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times But he predicted that the spat had helped to unify the Republican Party around him, saying the 'party has never been united like this before. It's never been. It's actually more so than it was three days ago.' Mr Musk's opposition to the Republican budget bill, formally the 'one big beautiful bill act', would not, he predicted affect its passage through Congress. The bill narrowly passed the House and is now under consideration in the Senate. However, some conservative Republicans share Musk's concerns about the need for significant spending cuts and are considering making changes. The bill extends Trump's 2017 tax cuts and includes new spending for border security and the military. Republicans aimed to offset these costs with cuts to programmes such as Medicaid, food stamps and green-energy tax credits. Projections from the Congressional Budget Office and independent analysts indicate that the bill would add between $2.3tn and $5tn to the deficit over the next 10 years. White House officials contend that the economic growth generated by tax cuts will offset the increased spending. [ How Trump spat threatens Elon Musk's business empire: 'Nobody on the right or left is gonna buy a Tesla' Opens in new window ] Still, Mr Trump told NBC he is 'very confident' that the bill will pass the Senate before July 4th. 'I think, actually, Elon brought out the strengths of the bill because people that weren't as focused started focusing on it, and they see how good it is,' Mr Trump said. 'So in that sense, there was a big favour. But I think Elon, really, I think it's a shame that he's so depressed and so heartbroken.' And he accused Mr Musk of being 'disrespectful to the office of the president'. 'I think it's a very bad thing, because he's very disrespectful. You could not disrespect the office of the president,' he said. Earlier, Musk deleted a post from X, the social media platform he owns, that asserted links between Trump and disgraced US financier Jeffrey Epstein . Probed on the inflammatory post, Mr Trump said: 'That's called 'old news', that's been old news, that has been talked about for years. Even Epstein's lawyer said I had nothing to do with it. It's old news.' Musk has also retracted a threat to begin 'decommissioning' SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft used by Nasa to ferry astronauts and supplies to the International Space Station. That came after Mr Trump suggested he might cancel SpaceX's federal contracts. On Saturday, the president said he hadn't given the subject any more thought. 'I'd be allowed to do that,' he said, 'but I haven't given it any thought.' Earlier on Saturday, JD Vance told interviewer and comedian Theo Von that Mr Musk was making a 'huge mistake' going after Mr Trump, but downplayed Mr Musk's attacks as being made by an 'emotional guy' who got frustrated.' I hope that eventually Elon comes back into the fold. Maybe that's not possible now because he's gone so nuclear,' the vice-president said. But he reasoned: 'Look, it happens to everybody. I've flown off the handle way worse than Elon Musk did in the last 24 hours.' 'I actually think if Elon chilled out a little bit, everything would be fine,' Vance said. – Guardian
Irish Times
14 hours ago
- Irish Times
Riot police and anti-ICE protesters clash in Los Angeles after immigration raids
Helmeted police in riot gear turned out on Friday evening in a tense confrontation with protesters in downtown Los Angeles , after a day of federal immigration raids in which dozens of people across the city were reported to be taken into custody. Live Reuters video showed Los Angeles Police Department officers lined up on a downtown street wielding batons and what appeared to be tear gas rifles, facing off with demonstrators after authorities had ordered crowds of protesters to disperse around nightfall. Early in the standoff, some protesters hurled chunks of broken concrete toward officers, and police responded by firing volleys of tear gas and pepper spray. Police also fired 'flash-bang' concussion rounds. It was not clear whether there were any immediate arrests. An LAPD spokesperson, Drake Madison, said that police on the scene had declared an unlawful assembly, meaning that those who failed to leave the area were subject to arrest. READ MORE Television news footage earlier in the day showed caravans of unmarked military-style vehicles and vans loaded with uniformed federal agents streaming through Los Angeles streets as part of the immigration enforcement operation. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents targeted several locations, including a Home Depot in the city's Wetlake District, an apparel store in the Fashion District and a clothing warehouse in South Los Angeles, according to the Los Angeles City News Service (CNS). Protesters walk the street near the site of a federal immigration raid in Los Angeles on Friday. Federal agents in tactical gear armed with military-style rifles threw flash-bang grenades to disperse an angry crowd as they conducted an immigration raid on a clothing wholesaler. Photograph: Alex Welsh/The New York Times [ What is Trump's new travel ban, and which countries are affected? Opens in new window ] CNS and other local media reported dozens of people were taken into custody during the raids, the latest in a series of such sweeps conducted in a number of cities as part of President Donald Trump's extensive crackdown on illegal immigration. The Republican president has vowed to arrest and deport undocumented migrants in record numbers. The LAPD did not take part in the immigration enforcement action. It was deployed to quell civil unrest after crowds protesting the deportation raids spray-painted anti-ICE slogans on the walls of a federal court building and massed outside a nearby jail where some of the detainees were believed to be held. Impromptu demonstrations had also erupted at some of the raid locations earlier in the day. One organised labour executive, David Huerta, president of the Service Employees International Union of California (SEIU), was injured and detained by ICE at one site, according to an SEIU statement. [ The immigrant familes fleeing Trump's US: 'I had to pack up my little things and leave. They have painted us as criminals' Opens in new window ] The union said Mr Huerta was arrested 'while exercising his First Amendment right to observe and document law enforcement activity'. No details about the nature or severity of Mr Huerta's injury were given. It was not clear whether he was charged with a crime. ICE did not immediately respond to a request from Reuters for information about its enforcement actions or Mr Huerta's detention. Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass issued a statement condemning the immigration raids, saying, 'these tactics sow terror in our communities and disrupt basic principles of safety in our city'. – Reuters
