Fantasy sport skills and our exercise of free will
PremiumThis boom market is expected to yield a tax bonanza in the grey zone of skill versus chance. Skills can be chancy, however, just as gambles could satisfy needs. Give free choice a chance
An argument clincher for fantasy sports arrived this week in the form of a tax bonanza that this industry is expected to yield, thanks to its dream emergence in recent years. Valued at ₹34,000 crore currently, the market is forecast to reach ₹1.65 trillion in India by 2024-25, according to a report put out jointly by the consultancy Deloitte and the Federation of Indian Fantasy Sports. If killjoys lay off and this pace of virtual growth materializes, its tax contribution to our coffers could zoom from a modest ₹1,450 crore in 2020-21 to a hefty ₹24,300 crore by 2024-25. This should quicken the pulse of taxmen on the lookout for easy pickings to meet an asking-rate raised sharply by a spell of covid-19, lest ever-steeper targets slip away. By trapping us indoors with eyeballs affixed to screens, the lethal bug did us at least one good turn. It made fantasy gamers proliferate across the country. Indeed, the craze has granted us yet another global boast: India now has the world’s largest base of fantasy sports-persons, estimated at above 130 million. The more they play, the more revenue this market will generate; and the faster it flips up its financial score, the less likely that we’ll all be burdened with heavier post-pandemic tax levies—either openly, in the shape of specific slap-ons, or silently, by way of prolific inflation. Or is this just a fiscal fantasy?
The grey zone this enterprise inhabits, though, lumps it with regulatory risks. It is exposed to glares of reproach not just from those given to suspicion of anything that’s fun, especially if it’s profitable, but also to gavel raps from courts of law that could take a dim view of this activity for falling afoul of bans—in some states—on money being staked on games of chance. But is that what they are? Opinions span a range of shades. Marketers of fantasy-sport gigs contend that they are real games of skill, like some of the actual versions played on real fields. Many game-players agree. Fantasy cricket, for example, lets participants crunch data, pick teams and summon other such wisdom to improve their odds of winning. Also, one can play cashless, typically, so trials are on the house. Yet, as the action stays in an online realm where it’s that software keeps scoreboards ticking, unless games are ‘fixed’, their final results must be a close function of random inputs. Chance must surely play a major role, even if only backstage. But then again, since skills are often perceptual anyway, self-perceptions of it ought to count. So long as our punters are convinced of their agency over wins and losses, their punts needn’t be clubbed with gambles. Fantasy games are found to be addictive, no doubt, but this can perhaps be held in check by rules that cap the time and cash each player may spend on them.
By the same token, we could also ease the curbs that prevail in some states on games of chance being bet upon. Roulette players may well be aware that the prize-money sought differs greatly from what they should expect to win once it’s weighted by their win likelihood; also, that this expectation cannot exceed their ticket price for a go at the wheel, unless it’s a loss-leader casino. But if they derive psychic benefits—like the rush of hope or thrill of a spin—then it would qualify as a case of value delivery from one free agent to another. Should state clamps interfere with free will? Let’s not forget that fantasy has seen demand swell in various other arenas as well, and that too, with unbridled supply to satisfy it.
Never miss a story! Stay connected and informed with Mint. Download our App Now!!