Not sure how to search for this, might be a thread somewhere else

But why are these Countries that have segregated player pools not in contravention of Free movement of Persons / Free movement of Capital / Free movement of Trade?

Is this discussed anywhere?

I think any .IT was ruled illegal under EU law within the last couple of weeks, since they only allow people from Italy to play - and by this I mean that the policy that Italy itself implements was ruled as being against the EU

.FR is fine (I think) as they allow anyone who has an EU bank account to play (Again I think)

Unsure about .ES sites

I think specifically gambling is allowed to be controlled like they do, even under the EU.

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2013/0...ling-16360.htm

That Italy ruling is great news

It should apply to ES Sites too, since they refuse non Spaniads right?

This is amazing news and I hope pokerstars.IT merges with the international player pool ASAP

I think ppl have said here that the news is a bit overstated and it only meant something about Malta licenses.
Not that it forces .IT to open its market

Where was that discussed? Thanks

This was the thread:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57...-pool-1374580/

To answer the main question. Whilst the European courts have ruled in favour of some gambling market liberalisation and in particular don't seem to like state run monopolies they have consistently ruled that nation states are able to limit gambling to licensed providers where the nation state sets the terms of the license.

The justification for allowing nation states to impose licensing and limits on products/player pools is consumer protection / protecting the vulnerable like children or problem gamblers. This is in contradiction to the whole EU thang which is why we end up with lots of little EU court judgements in this area.

In truth I think the new UK model where they tax UK player revenues only could cut this Gordian knot. The real reason the states cling to this power is their ability to tax and/or protect their state monopoly. The UK model would let all the nation states tax as they like and even impose additional consumer protections if they want but still pool players. The provider would just get licensed in multiple countries based upon a similar core set of rules.

The UK approach is much more in line with EU principles as it lets providers be based wherever they like so long as they get a UK licence and pay UK duties.

Thanks Richas

You seem to really have a good grasp on this stuff..

Will .es/.it ever be open to non residents at any stage soon, or an EU wide thing?

If this were the case then the swedish pokersite Svenska Spel would also be breaking eu rules.

Svenska Spel is regularly getting dragged to the EU courts. Ladbrokes have been having a spat with them since at least 2008.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Ladbro...s.-a0208613003

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2007/0...ting-times.htm

The European Court can chip at the monopoly but unless they reverse their ruling that national licensing is fine as consumer protection it can only be chipping at it. Fortunately not all those in charge in the nation states are complete idiots, they can see that the national pools harm poker so if they are offered a way to get their tax and have shared player pools they are persuadable, meanwhile .es.it and even .fr are looking at pooling between themselves rather than ROW.

This is the reason why poker got tougher imo.These three countries had the most fish in Europe and a lot of the top players just move out to continue playing.Not to mention that are three of the bigger countries in EU.Same thing of course with US.

So is the general perception that this is 'nothing to see here' news?

Not quite. it is another small chip against those that want state monopolies but it is very specific ruling re those with a physical presence in the jurisdiction. For poker it is a bit meh.