Fehlende oder falsch abgerechnete Simulcast-Gebühren

Definition

Race field approvals are granted at state and territory level by 16 different principal racing authorities, each with its own conditions, fee schedules and reporting obligations for wagering operators.[1] These fees are usually calculated as a percentage of turnover or gross revenue on approved race fields and are often intertwined with broader simulcast or product fee arrangements. Where operators or racetracks reconcile simulcast betting data from multiple systems (on‑course tote, corporate bookmakers, international partners) in spreadsheets, common issues include: unreported races, incorrect jurisdiction tagging (e.g. Victorian vs NSW race), misclassification of bet types, currency conversion errors for international simulcast pools, and late incorporation of amendments (voids, refunds, deductions). Even a small systematic under‑reporting of 1–2 % of turnover across multiple jurisdictions can represent six‑figure annual revenue leakage to the rightsholder (race club or principal racing authority) or over‑payment by the operator. Because governing bodies commonly apply audit powers and back‑billing when discrepancies are found, this leakage can also crystallise as large one‑off clawbacks. Given typical product fee levels of 1–3 % of turnover, a mid‑size operator handling AUD 200m in annual Australian race betting can easily mis‑state fees by AUD 200k–400k per year if controls are weak.

Why This Matters

The Pitch: Racetrack and wagering operators in Australia 🇦🇺 waste schätzungsweise AUD 200.000–500.000 jährlich durch falsch berechnete Race-Field- und Simulcast-Gebühren. Automation der Datensammlung, Turnover-Abstimmung und Gebührenlogik reduziert Abweichungen auf unter 0,5 % und eliminiert dieses Risiko.

Affected Stakeholders

CFO von Rennbahnen, Wagering-Manager, Leitung Buchhaltung/Revenue Assurance, Legal & Compliance für Wettanbieter, Produkt- und Partnermanagement International Wagering

Related Business Risks