Gems Gone Wild

How to play Gems Gone Wild

VGW’s $100,000 contribution to Tuberville brings its total campaign contributions in Alabama this year to more than $351,000. The bulk of the funds—$170,000—went to North Alabama PAC, a political action committee managed by operative Steve Ruby.

Ruby is being funded by numerous gaming entities that want to see Alabama legalize gambling and sports betting. His donor list, along with VGW, includes DraftKings, FanDuel, BetMGM, and the Poarch Band of Creek Indians.

VGW gave $20,000 to state Sen. Andrew Jones (R-District 10) and $15,000 to Senate President Pro Tempore Garlan Gudger (R-District 4). State Sens. Donnie Chesteen (R-District 29) and Will Barfoot (R-District 25), along with Republican candidate John Roberts, who is running in the second district, each received $10,000 from VGW.

What is Gems Gone Wild?

Sponsorships and advertising with sports teams was also flagged as according to the report, voluntary efforts had failed to reduce the industry’s exposure. 

With int he report Dr Matt Gaskell MBE observed that “overall exposure (including shirts, hoardings, logos, sponsorship and related marketing) during live sports programmes does not show that self-regulation has reduced exposure meaningfully”. 

Voluntary efforts have included Premier League football opting to ban front-of-shirt gambling sponsorships, as of the beginning of this current season. Although, branding remains on training kits, shirt sleeves and across stadium advertisements. 

What is Gems Gone Wild?

However, the latest filing does not create such a system right away. Its OIRA entry describes the action as a preliminary measure and says it is not economically significant under the relevant review criteria. No legal deadline has been listed for review either. 

It could, therefore, take quite a bit longer than the timing of the initial filing indicates. The CFTC would have to publish its action and solicit public comment after White House review before writing a formal proposed rule. Any final rule would have to undergo another review and comment period before it could take effect. 

The distinction matters for crypto businesses. The filing shows regulatory work is moving forward, but exchanges and other market participants cannot yet consider it a set of rules they must adhere to.