597650

research-article2015
IRS0010.1177/1012690215597650International Review for theGassmann et al.

Research Article

International Review for the

Who bets on sports? Some Sociology of Sport

2017, Vol. 52(4) 391­–410
© The Author(s) 2015
further empirical evidence Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
using German data DOI: 10.1177/1012690215597650
https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690215597650
journals.sagepub.com/home/irs

Freya Gassmann and Eike Emrich

Saarland University, Germany

Christian Pierdzioch
Helmut Schmidt University (University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg), Germany

Abstract
Given the rapid expansion of the German sports-betting market and recent changes in market
regulations, it is interesting to reexamine the socioeconomic profile of German sports bettors:
Who bets on sports? In order to analyse this question, this study used an online survey to collect
data on sports-betting behaviour (N=634). It modelled participation in sports betting by means of
a logit model that recovers determinants of a person’s propensity to participate in sports betting.
Results show that the typical sports-bettor is 32 years old and male, has a low household income,
is highly interested in sports, and is willing to take risks.

Keywords
gambling, gambling market, games of chance, logit regression, sports bets

Introduction
Elias and Dunning (2003: 172) argued that games of chance in general and sports betting
in particular represent leisure-time activities that offer a quest for excitement insofar as
they trigger the recurrence of ‘alternating short moments of fear with happy moments of
hope’ (Elias and Dunning, 2003: 195). Historically, sports betting with fixed win quotas
originated in Great Britain and Scandinavia. Systematic betting on soccer started in
Great Britain as early as 1921 (Mintas, 2009: 26), while betting on soccer was advanced
in Germany only after the end of World War II, when sports associations initiated the
establishment of state soccer pools companies in 1948 (Endes and Feldner, 2012; Mintas,
2009). The German state soccer pools had been the only sports-betting suppliers for a

Corresponding author:
Freya Gassmann, Arbeitsbereich Sportökonomie und Sportsoziologie, Sportwissenschaftliches Institut der
Universität des Saarlandes, Campus Geb. B8 1, Zi. 0.13, D-66123 Saarbrücken, Germany.
Email: f.gassmann@mx.uni-saarland.de
392 International Review for the Sociology of Sport 52(4)

long time. Addiction prophylaxis was the official justification for the rigid regulation of
the German sports-betting market; the so-called Oddset sports bet was introduced in
Germany only in 1990. The Oddset sports bet, organized by the German lottery and
pools block (DLTB), was mostly offered by private organizers from abroad via the
Internet and also by the owners of an old GDR (German Democratic Republic) permit
(Mintas, 2009: 27), which was still valid after German reunification.
While in the period 2008–2011 the state had a monopoly on sports betting, an amend-
ment to law (Glücksspielstaatsänderungsvertrag) made in 2012 opened up the market for
private providers, but up to now no licenses have been assigned (Rebeggiani and Breuer,
2015). National and international private providers with old GDR and foreign licenses
currently offer sport bets and pay a voluntary tax rate of 5 per cent on the betting amount,
which was implemented as a transitional system, and private providers accept this sys-
tem to avoid future disadvantages in case licenses will be distributed (Rebeggiani and
Breuer, 2015).
In the more recent past, the introduction of new media technologies and the wide-
spread adoption of the Internet laid the foundation for a strong expansion of the market
for sports bets in Germany (Endes and Feldner, 2012). Impressive revenue growth rates
of almost 300% between 2004 and 2005 document this rapid growth of the German
sports betting market (Bendixen, 2008), and technological progress may lead to a further
growth in the coming years (Spöring, 2012).1
Given the rapid expansion and regulatory changes of the German sports betting mar-
ket, it is natural to reexamine what is known about the socioeconomic profile of bettors:
Who bets on sports? In order to study this question, this study surveys the literature on
(sports) betting markets in Section 2. Section 3 describes the data on sports betting
behaviour that was collected by means of an online survey. The results of a quantitative
analysis of the data are documented in Section 4, and the study’s main results are sum-
marized in Section 5, which also offers some concluding remarks.

Literature review
Researchers have analysed: (1) the regulation, fiscal effects, and distributional effects
of betting markets (on the monopoly on games of chance in Germany, see Albers,
1993: Chapter 3); (2) the implications of sports betting for the propensity to get
addicted to sports betting and gambling (see Bloch, 1951; Kearney, 2005; and for
Germany: Beckert and Lutter, 2007; 2008); and (3) the determinants of players’ decision
to participate in betting
As for the regulation of betting markets, Reiche (2013) compares cultural with
social motives that led to the imposition of state regulations on games of chance in
both the United States and Germany. Beckert and Lutter (2008, 2009) argue that lotter-
ies have three fiscal and distributional effects (2009: 475): (1) by participating in a
lottery, players agree that there will be few winners and many losers, i.e. a certain
proportion of the stake of a player is paid out to other players following the principle
of chance; (2) only part of the gaming turnover (approximately 48%) is paid out to
winning players, where part of turnover covers operating costs (approximately 13%)
and taxes or concession levy (39%) that have to be paid to the state; and (3) state
Gassmann et al. 393

lotteries are an example of regressive taxation (Beckert and Lutter, 2009: 2483), as the
lower classes contribute a disproportionately large amount to tax income from lotteries
while tax revenues are used to finance projects often benefitting the upper classes
(Beckert and Lutter, 2009: 482). Blalock et al. (2007), Borg et al. (1991) and McKinney
and Swain (1993) also note the regressive-taxation effect of lotteries.2
Abarbanel (2012) compares 64 countries with respect to sports-betting policies, where
the focus is on the influence of cultural predictors as measured by Hofstede index scores
(Uncertainty Avoidance Index, Individualism, Power Distance Index and Masculinity).
Abarbanel differentiates between governments that actively allow, passively allow,
actively prohibit, and passively prohibit sports bets. The Uncertainty Avoidance Index
and Individualism were the best predictors of policy types. The Uncertainty Avoidance
Index helped to discriminate between ‘allow’ and ‘prohibit’ policies. The Individualism
Index, in turn, was higher for the ‘actively allow policy’ countries than the ‘actively
prohibit’ countries.
In order to measure addiction effects, the proportion of players in a population and the
frequency with which they bet are commonly used as indicators for addictive behaviour.
LaBrie and Shaffer (2011) identify patterns of sports gambling that distinguish ‘sports
bettors with self-reported gambling-related problems from sports bettors without such
difficulties’ (2011: 56). The authors use a ‘Bwin’ longitudinal dataset that includes data
on betting behaviour of 47,134 individuals for a 2-years period. Their results show that
half of the account closers with self reported gambling-related problems show a ‘homo-
geneous and distinct pattern of sports-betting behavior’ (LaBrie and Shaffer, 2011).
These bettors made more and larger bets, bet more frequently, and were more likely to
exhibit intense betting.
As reported by the German Federal Centre for Health Education (BZgA), 70% of the
German population played some kind of lottery in their lives, where 11.1% of citizens
stated that they had bet on sporting events at least once in their life and 3.4% stated that
they had taken part in bets during the last year. Bets with the state office Oddset were
most frequent and only a small proportion of respondents answered that they had bet
using the Internet (BZgA, 2012). In contrast, Daumann et al. (2011) report results of a
questionnaire study that suggest that betting using the Internet is quite common in
Germany, and that many players have reservations about Oddset’s bet products.
According to Lutter (2010a: 22), 40% of adult Germans participate in a lottery at least
once a year, while the 12-month prevalence of games of chance using casinos, slot
machines, sports bets, and Internet casinos varies between 3 and 5.8% (see Beckert and
Lutter, 2009: 237).
LaBrie et al. (2007) show, using data records from the sporting bet provider ‘Bwin’
(N = 40,499), that players made an average of 2.5 bets with an average stake of €4
every four days in four months.3 According to Lutter (2010a: 22), 22% of those players
who made sports bets at least once a year (1.3% of the total population) tended to bet
every week.
As for the factors that determine betting participation, Browne and Brown (1994:
344) find that American college students play lotteries more frequently and spend more
money if their parents or members of their peer group play lotteries, whereby the influ-
ence of the peer group is stronger for males than for females.4 Beckert and Lutter (2008)
394 International Review for the Sociology of Sport 52(4)

also consider the possibility that the integration into a peer group in which betting is
common goes along with a greater possibility that a person participates in a lottery.
Moreover, they report that three additional factors help explain why people play lotteries
(Beckert and Lutter, 2008: 240f.). First, players may estimate incorrectly their chances to
win a positive amount of money. In this respect, players’ level of education may matter
(also see Eadington (1988: 270) and Blalock et al. (2007: 547) on games of chance and
rational behavior). Second, even with the expected payoff being negative betting can still
be rational because there is a small chance of winning a large amount of money with only
a small amount of money being at stake (Beckert and Lutter, 2008: 250ff.; see Albers,
1993: 21; Blalock et al., 2007: 551, Eadington, 1987: 267, on Friedman-Savage para-
doxes).Third, upon buying a lottery ticket, players buy the possibility of building pipe-
dreams (Beckert and Lutter, 2008: 254). Pipe-dreams may be the result of poor economic
conditions. According to Blalock et al. (2007: 546), poor economic conditions lead to
acts of desperation and can lead to participation in games of chance as a possibility to
escape from economic constraints. Using macroeconomic data for US states, they find
that sales of lottery tickets increase as the rate of poverty rises.5 Similarly, Kearney uses
data for 21 US states to show that household expenditure on lottery tickets comes from
expenditure that is not gambling related, and that expenditure on lottery tickets is par-
ticularly high for low-income households (2005: 2295).
Breuer et al. (2009) analyse sports-betting financial products. Usually, sports betting
products consist of a fixed base interest rate and an uncertain bonus payment, which
depends on the outcome of a predefined sporting event. According to the authors, there
are ‘theoretically several potential reasons which may make this instrument an attractive
investment’ (Breuer et al., 2009: 2252). They performed a computer-based experiment
with 385 students and found that ‘non-monetary utility components may be only of indi-
rect importance by influencing probability assessments’, and conclude that sport-betting
financial products are mere marketing gimmicks.
Lin and Lu (2015) explore psychological and sociodemographic factors influencing
participation in sports lotteries. They select 100 sports-lottery-betting stations in Taiwan
and perform face-to-face interviews with bettors (N = 1032). The authors report evidence
of “herding behavior”6 and a gender difference in sports lottery betting (Lin and Lu,
2015: 118). They show that bettors with neuroticism have lower risk tolerance.
Paul and Weinbach (2010) analyse the determinants of betting volume of the National
Basketball Association and National Hockey League for the 2008–2009 season.
According to these authors: ‘Bettor behavior appears closely tied to fan behavior’ (Paul
and Weinbach, 2010: 137). Furthermore, the quality of teams and the availability of tel-
evision coverage have a positive effect on betting volume. Paul and Weinbach conclude
‘that consumption plays a major role in the decision to gamble on sports’ (2010: 128).
Welte et al. (2002) use a national telephone survey with 2,630 representative US resi-
dents to describe demographic patterns of gambling participation. Possibly due to a small
sample size, they aggregate data on betting on cards, games of skill (e.g. pool and golf),
and sports betting into the category games/sports. They report that, particularly with
regard to sports betting and games, male bettors gamble more frequently and have larger
wins and losses than female, where males are more interested in sports than females.
They also find that it is more likely that individuals with higher socioeconomic status bet
Gassmann et al. 395

than individuals with a low socioeconomic status. Blacks have a lower participation rate,
but those blacks who do bet have a higher level of involvement (Welte et al., 2002: 328f).
Results reported by Wicker and Soebbing (2012) for German data collected by means
of an online questionnaire indicate that gamblers who participated in sports betting in
2010 are male with a high income, have a low level of education, are of non-German
origin, have an affinity for other games of chance, and do not do own sporting
activities.
In an international comparison of data for Great Britain and Canada, Humphreys and
Soebbing (2012) show that the probability of participating in sports bets decreases with
increasing age. Males are more likely to participate in sports bets than females, and the
probability of participating in sports bets increases when household income is low and
household members are employed. The average age of betting participants is approxi-
mately 44 in Great Britain and approximately 35 in Canada.
LaBrie et al. (2007) characterize the typical online sports gambler as male, about
thirty years old, and of European descent. In a comparison of active athletes, former
athletes and non-athletes, Weiss and Loubier (2010) show that current and former ath-
letes participate to a greater extent in games of chance and especially in sports bets than
persons that have not been active in sports.7 The tendency to play games of chance seems
to be higher for former athletes than for other groups. Moreover, former athletes seem to
prefer to play games of chance that they think they can influence by their own skills (e.g.
sports bets).
In sum, results of earlier studies suggest that the propensity to participate depends on
several sociodemographic factors: males tend to bet more frequently than females, and
gender, income, and age appear to play a role for betting behaviour. Moreover, bettors’
interest in sports alongside their own sporting activities has also been analysed. Attitudes
towards risk and a tendency to bet (Lutter, 2010a) may also play a role. Taken together,
however, the available empirical evidence on how exactly the likelihood that an indi-
vidual participates in sports bets is linked to these sociodemographic factors is at least in
part mixed. For example, against the background of the available empirical evidence, it
is unclear as to whether income has a positive or a negative effect on the propensity to
participate in sports bets. Some researchers report evidence that the desire to escape from
economic constraints induces individuals with a low income to participate in sports bet-
ting, while other researchers find that participation in sports bets is positively linked to
income. Similarly, while sports betting appears to be more prevalent among males and
young persons the effect of socioeconomic status remains unclear. Moreover, some
results reported in earlier literature indicate that own sports activities increase the likeli-
hood to participate in sports betting, while other researchers report that sports bettors are
rather passive with regard to their own sports activities.
As far as results for Germany are concerned a further concern is that empirical evi-
dence is rather scarce and based on relatively small datasets (Daumann et al., 2011;
Wicker and Soebbing, 2012). The fact that researchers could analyse only small datasets
should not be viewed per se as a drawback of earlier research on sports betting in
Germany given that collecting data on sports betting is a difficult task. At the same time,
however, it is important to check the robustness of results of earlier research using novel
data; this is what is done in the current research. Moreover, given that questionnaire data
396 International Review for the Sociology of Sport 52(4)

used in earlier research were collected during short periods of time in 2010/2011
(Daumann et al., 2011; Wicker and Soebbing, 2012), an interesting question is whether
two sports mega events, the European Football Championship and the Olympic Summer
Games of 2012, have had an effect on sports betting in Germany. Because this study col-
lected its data in 2013, these data should reflect such effects.
Finally, given recent media coverage of corruption related to sports bets, an interest-
ing question neglected in earlier empirical literature is whether corruption cases and/or
betting manipulation affect betting behaviour. As reported by, for example, Ashelm
(2014), sports bets are an ‘El Dorado for criminals’. However, researchers have hardly
investigated whether the integrity of sports games is threatened by manipulation for bet-
ting. A study by Keating in 2003 (quoted by McKelvey, 2004) shows that 52% of US citi-
zens believe that manipulation took place in some sports. Koch and Maennig (2006)
show that there is no evidence of a systematic threat to sports from cases of corruption
linked to betting. Notwithstanding, they argue that a decisive anti-corruption policy is
needed to ward off damage to sporting norms from corruption linked to betting.8

Data and methods

The method
This study conducted an online survey from 2 July to 31 July 2013. Based on a standard-
ized questionnaire, the online survey was used to collect data on sociodemographic vari-
ables (gender, age, etc.) and data on the experience of respondents with sports bets (how
often they had participated). More than 86% of the respondents answered that they par-
ticipate irregularly in sports bets. For this reason, this study used as the dependent vari-
able in its empirical analysis the answer to the question whether respondents ever had
participated in sports betting. This question leaves open when exactly respondents had
participated in sports betting (‘last week’, ‘last month’, etc.). Overall, 27% of respond-
ents (N = 528) stated that they had participated in sports betting.
This study also asked questions concerning the respondents’ attitudes towards risk,
their sports behaviour, and their media consumption. In total, 1,490 persons visited the
Internet page of the online survey, and 634 persons answered the questions, where 77%
answered all questions. Because this study’s aim was to reach young adults (20–40 years
old; the majority of players participating in sports bets are young adults, see LaBrie et al.,
2007), it mainly used social networks to distribute the online survey. Specifically, it dis-
seminated the link to the online survey via Facebook,9 and asked sports students to dis-
tribute the link among their friends. In addition, this study used an e-mail distributor.
Participation in the survey was possible independently of age, gender, sporting interest,
and tendency to bet.

The sample
Men are somewhat underrepresented in this study’s data as 42% of respondents are
males and 58% are females. The average age of respondents at the time of the survey
Gassmann et al. 397

was approximately 31 years (standard deviation: 11 years) and is skewed to the right. In
comparison to the German population, mainly young people participated in the survey,
which is what was expected.10 The majority of respondents were employed at the time
of the survey (40%) or studied at a university or technical college (46%). A small differ-
ence was observed between males and females as a larger proportion of females were
students (51%; men: 39%). Overall, there were more males (46%) than females (35%)
in employment, a difference that perhaps can be explained by differences between the
age distributions of males and females in this study’s data.
The level of education of respondents was comparatively high, with 39% holding a
university degree, 12% holding a technical college qualification, and 22% having com-
pleted professional training. Approximately 32% of respondents were still in training at
the time of the survey. Only 4% of respondents answered that they had no education
qualification and were not in training. With regard to the education level, there are differ-
ences between this study’s data and the German population. In 2012, only 7.8% of the
population held a university degree average independently of age (Statistisches
Bundesamt [Federal Statistics Office], 2013) – in the 25–29 age group 11% had a univer-
sity degree, 6% a degree from a technical college, 51% completed a professional train-
ing, and 25% had not finished an education qualification (Genesis-Online Datenbank,
2013a). Highly educated young adults, thus, are overrepresented in this study’s data.
As was expected given the age distribution, respondents had less money available
than a member of a representative German household. Slightly more than a third of
respondents had available a monthly household income of less than €1,000 and approxi-
mately a quarter had available between €1,000 and less than €2,250 per month. 15% of
respondents answered that they had available €2,250 and less than €3,500 per month and
approximately the same proportion answered that they had available a household income
of between €3,500 and less than €4,500 per month.
As compared to the average German household, respondents lived in below average
financial conditions. Two-thirds of respondents answered that they had available a
household income of €2,250 or less per month, which is substantially lower than the
national average of €2,988 (Federal Statistics Office, 2011)11. and higher than the national
average individual net income of €1,618 in the 18–2412 age group (Genesis-Online
Datenbank, 2013b). Only 5% of both males and females had available between €4,500
and less than €5,500 or more per month. At the same time, 42% of respondents judged
their financial situation to be good or very good at the time of the survey, with approxi-
mately 20% of respondents judging it to be bad or very bad. Females had significantly
less money available on average than males.
Approximately two-thirds of respondents did not live alone but lived with at least one
person. Overall, more females than men lived alone, which probably also partly explains
their lower household income.
This study observed only small differences between males and females with regard to
sporting activity. 91% of respondents stated that they played sports. Two-thirds of the 9%
who were currently inactive used to play sports and thus only 3% of respondents never
had played sports. Respondents, thus, were on average young, highly educated, did play
or had played sports, and had a low income.13
398 International Review for the Sociology of Sport 52(4)

The empirical model

This study modelled respondents’ propensity to participate in sports betting by means of
a logistic (logit) model to differentiate between respondents who bet and respondents
who do not bet.
As for the explanatory variable age, cubic splines were used to model the relationship
between age and the propensity to bet (see, e.g. Harrell, 2001: 20ff; Lohmann, 2010:
678). Harrell (2001) recommends three to five knots to estimate a spline, which is gener-
ally set automatically based on the age distribution.
This study also considered gender effects, and it used household income as an explana-
tory variable. Because data on household income were collected in groups in the survey
group-specific dummy variables were formed to add household income to the study’s model.
As additional explanatory variables, a measure of corruption risk, the influence of
interest in sports, and a measure of attitudes towards risk were used. As for corruption
risk, respondents were asked to classify how much threat they guess for sports in general
on a five-level scale from 1 ‘no threat at all’ to 5 ‘extreme threat’ (median 4). Overall, the
distribution of the answers on corruption risk was slightly skewed to the left but almost
symmetric. This explanatory variable was interpreted as a metric variable.14
As for interest in sports, respondents were asked to indicate how frequently they col-
lected information on sports from newspapers, the Internet, radio, TV, and other media.
This information was used to compute a metric indicator by calculating their unweighted
average value, which is a summary measure of the frequency of media use.15 The assump-
tion here is that respondents who use different media tend to be more interested in sports
than respondents who only gather information on sports from a single newspaper. The
variable ‘interest in sports’ assumes a minimum of zero for respondent who never gather
information on sports and a maximum of four for respondents who gather information on
sports from five different kinds of media. The mean of this study’s media-consumption
indicator is two, i.e. respondents were moderately interested in gathering information on
sports from the media.
As for the measure of attitudes towards risk used in this research,16 respondents were
asked to choose, on a five-point scale, the extent to which the statement ‘safety is always
the most important thing to me’ was applicable to them, from 1 ‘not applicable’ to 5
‘absolutely and fully applicable’. This variable was interpreted metrically because it was
assumed that the distances between the scale values are identical. On average, respond-
ents entered a value of 3, whereby most respondents chose the value 4, so that the vari-
able is only slightly skewed to the left. Respondents, thus, appear to be rather risk averse.

Empirical results
Several models were estimated (see Table 1). The coefficients of the models were
y-standardized. The fully (y- and x-) standardized regression coefficients in the multi-
variate Model 5b allow the strength of the influence of the various variables to be com-
pared. Results show that age and gender have the strongest effects followed by ‘interest
in sports’. Income plays a moderate role. Both risk aversion and respondents’ subjective
belief of a threat of corruption in sports also exert a weak effect, with the former having
Gassmann et al. 399

Table 1.  Results of the logistic regression model (y-standardized β-coefficients).

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5a Model 5b*

Sex:
 Male 1.053*** 0.924*** 0.790*** 0.768*** 0.746*** 0.369***
  (7.84) (7.61) (6.60) (6.43) (6.25) (6.25)
Income:
  < €1,000 Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
  €1,000 < –0.423** –0.370* –0.427** –0.423** –0.436** –0.195**
 €2,250 (–2.70) (–2.45) (–2.78) (–2.77) (–2.85) (–2.85)
  €2,250 < –0.549** –0.407* –0.331+ –0.329+ –0.307+ –0.111+
 €3,500 (–2.83) (–2.18) (–1.82) (–1.82) (–1.68) (–1.68)
  €3,500 < –0.527** –0.412* –0.456* –0.471* –0.507** –0.169**
 €4,500 (–2.60) (–2.10) (–2.36) (–2.45) (–2.60) (–2.60)
  €4,500 < –0.284 0.062 –0.052 –0.088 –0.081 –0.019
 €5,500 (–1.14) (0.24) (–0.21) (–0.34) (–0.32) (–0.32)
 >€5,500 –0.479+ –0.216 –0.167 –0.113 –0.080 –0.018
  (–1.76) (–0.83) (–0.65) (–0.44) (–0.32) (–0.32)
Age
  Spline 1 0.069** 0.066** 0.073** 0.073** 0.819**
  (2.81) (2.69) (2.96) (2.93) (2.93)
  Spline 2 –0.296*** –0.281*** –0.300*** –0.288*** –0.133***
  (–3.64) (–3.52) (–3.71) (–3.59) (–3.59)
Interest in sports 0.258*** 0.253*** 0.259*** 0.317***
  (5.13) (5.01) (5.08) (5.08)
Threat of corruption –0.117+ –0.116+ –0.104+
  (–1.90) (–1.89) (–1.89)
Risk aversion –0.133* –0.140*
  (–2.46) (–2.46)
Constants –1.881*** –5.914*** –7.368*** –6.680*** –5.667*** –5.667***
  (–7.30) (–4.04) (–4.57) (–4.07) (–3.32) (–3.32)
N 433 433 433 433 433 433
Mc Fadden Pseudo R2 0.183 0.245 0.311 0.319 0.333 0.333
Nagelkerke Pseudo R2 0.270 0.350 0.430 0.440 0.455 0.455

The β-coefficients are y-standardized; t-statistic in parenthese;* the β-coefficients in the overall model 5b
are x- and y-standardized; +p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

a somewhat stronger influence than the latter. The effect of subjective belief of a threat
of corruption in sports is significant at the 6% level.
The McFadden pseudo-R2 of the model assumes a value of 33%.17 The quality of the
model was also checked by comparing the predicted and actual values (Table 2).
Sensitivity and specificity assume values of 54.64% and 94.05% and indicate a good
model performance. Further analysis showed that the area under the ROC curve is 0.87.
Overall, the model correctly classifies 53 gamblers and 316 non-gamblers (out of 433
respondents). The model, therefore, correctly predicts in 85% of all cases.
400 International Review for the Sociology of Sport 52(4)

Table 2.  Predictive power of the model.

True value 

  Gambler Non-gambler Total

Predicted value Betting 53 20 73
Not betting 44 316 360
Total 97 336 433
  Sensitivity 54.64%
  Specificity 94.05%
  Correctly predicted 85.22%

The threshold is set at 0.5.

Table 3.  Predicted probability of already having participated in sports bets, separated into
males and females, estimated from the overall regression model (Table 2, Model 5a, N=472).

Ideal type (age: 26 (median), income: Predicted probability 95%-confidence interval

under €1,000, remainder at means)
Males 58% [44%; 72%]
Females 16% [8%; 24%]

Gender effects and the probability of betting

The gender effect is significant across all models. The probability that a respondent had
participated in sports bets is higher for males than for females, consistent with results
reported in earlier research (Welte et al., 2002; Wicker and Soebbing, 2012). The overall
model (Table 1, Model 5a) implies that a 26-year old male bettor who earns less than
€1,000 and whose socioeconomic profile is identical to the profile of an average respond-
ent had participated in sports betting with a probability of 58%. For a female bettor with
the same characteristics, the probability is only 16% (see Table 3); the chance that a male
respondent had already participated in a sports bet is approximately seven times higher18
than for a female respondent.

Age and the probability of betting

Age has an inverted u-shaped effect on the probability that a respondent had participated
in sports bets (Figure 1).19 The probability of betting first increases, attains a maximum
at the age of 32, and then starts decreasing. Thus, for a 32-year old respondent the prob-
ability is approximately four times larger than that for a 20-year old respondent (the
reference group);20 Figure 1 further shows that the effect of age is only significant for a
certain range of ages but not for middle-aged respondents possibly because this study has
only available a few data for middle-aged respondents. Estimates, however, regain reli-
ability for respondents of approximately 56 years or older. The probability that a 56-year
old had participated in sports bets is only 16%.21
Gassmann et al. 401

Figure 1.  Logits and confidence interval of betting, estimated from the overall regression
model (Table 2, Model 5a, N=472).

Income and the probability of betting

A respondent who had available a middle household income per month (categories:
€1,000 < €2,250 and €2,250 < €3,500) has a lower participation probability than a
respondent who had less than €1,000 available per month (Table 4). Overall male
respondents in the middle-income categories have the lowest probability of having had
bet on sports. Hence, this study’s results on the effect of income on the propensity to
participate in sports bets corroborate results of earlier research that find that sports bets
are more prevalent among individuals with a low income (Humphreys and Soebbing,
2012; see, however, Wicker and Soebbing, 2012, who find that sports bettors tend to
have a high income). However, confidence intervals are rather wide (the insignificance
of the upper income-categories reflects the composition of the sample) and, therefore,
the interpretation of differences in probabilities across income groups should not be
stretched too far.

Interest in sports and the probability of betting

Figure 2 shows (for males and females) the effect of interest in sports on the participation
probability for a respondent with an income under €1,000, an age of 26 years (median
age), and an otherwise average socioeconomic profile. The participation probability of
bets increases with increasing interest in sports. Males who stated that they were very
interested in sports have a participation probability of 84%. The probability that females
already had participated in sports betting, if they are not interested in sports, is only 4%.
Females with a strong interest in sports have approximately the same participation prob-
ability (27%) as males with a low interest in sports (1 on the scale) (26%).22
402 International Review for the Sociology of Sport 52(4)

Table 4.  Predicted probability of already having participated in sports bets, separate for males,
estimated from the overall regression model (Table 2, Model 5a, N=472).

Average type (age: 26 (median), Predicted probability 95% confidence interval

male, other variables at means)
< €1,000 58% [44%; 72%]
€1,000 < €2,250 30% [16%; 44%]
€2,250 < €3,500 38% [18%; 58%]
€3,500 < €4,500 26% [9%; 44%]
€4,500 < €5,500 53% [21%; 84%]
> €5,500 53% [22%; 84%]

Figure 2.  Predicted probability of betting for the variable interest in sports, separated by sex,
estimated from the overall regression model (Table 2, Model 5a, N=472).
Predicted values for respondents with an income of under €1,000, aged 26, and otherwise with average
characteristics.

Perceived threat to sports from corruption and the probability of betting

The probability that a respondent had participated in sports bets decreases in the per-
ceived threat of corruption (Figure 3). The confidence interval is rather wide for
females who do not perceive any threat to sports from corruption, but in general the
confidence interval is somewhat narrower than for males. Females who do not per-
ceive any threat to sports from corruption also tend not to bet. Males who do not
perceive any threat of corruption have an 80% participation probability.23
Gassmann et al. 403

Figure 3.  Predicted probability of betting for the variable ‘threat to sports from corruption’,
separated by sex, estimated from the overall regression model (Table 2, Model 5a, N=472).
Predicted values for respondents with an income of under €1,000, aged 26, and otherwise with average
characteristics.

Attitude towards risk and the probability of betting

Figure 4 shows that the probability that a respondent had participated in sports bets is
lower the higher is the degree of risk aversion. The effect is approximately the same (on
a somewhat different level) for males and females, where males have a stronger tendency
to bet than females, independent of risk aversion. The predicted probability that males
for whom risk-aversion is high would bet is 43% and, thus, still above the corresponding
probability for females. For males for whom risk aversion is low, the probability is 30%.
The influence of gender, thus, is stronger than the influence of risk aversion.

Summary and concluding remarks

Against the mixed and in part conflicting evidence reported in earlier research on the
characteristics of sports bettors, the purpose of this study was to reexamine the determi-
nants of the propensity to participate in sports bets using a novel dataset. Part of this
study’s results confirm earlier evidence, other results contradict earlier evidence, and still
other results have no counterpart in earlier research (the effect of, for example, the per-
ceived threat to sports of corruption has been largely neglected in earlier research).
A total of 634 primarily relatively young respondents were surveyed in the summer
of 2013 using an online questionnaire. Respondents in this study’s non-representative
sample were younger and better educated overall and had less money available than the
404 International Review for the Sociology of Sport 52(4)

Figure 4.  Predicted probability of betting for the variable risk aversion, separated by sex,
estimated from the overall regression model (Table 2, Model 5a, N=472).
Predicted values for respondents with an income of under €1,000, aged 26, and otherwise with average
characteristics.

average German citizen. Keeping this in mind, this study’s results show that the prob-
ability that a respondent had already participated in sports betting depends on a gender
effect. The probability that a male respondent had already participated in sports betting
is seven times larger than for a female respondent, corroborating findings of earlier
research (Humphreys and Soebbing, 2012; LaBrie et al., 2007; Wicker and Soebbing,
2012).
In contrast to Wicker and Soebbing (2012), this study found an inverted u-shaped link
between age and the probability that a respondent had already participated in sports bet-
ting. Because some earlier researchers (Humphreys et al., 2011) report evidence of a
nonlinear age effect this study analysed the age effect with splines in more detail and
could confirm the presence of a nonlinear effect.
In comparison to results documented in earlier research (Humphreys and Soebbing,
2012; Wicker and Soebbing, 2012), respondents in this study study were younger and
had available a lower household income. In this respect, it should be kept in mind that
this study’s sample is not representative of the German population.
This study’s results further suggest that the probability that a respondent had partici-
pated in sports betting is higher for respondents with a low household income. The prob-
ability is lowest for respondents who belong to the middle-income group, suggesting the
possibility that participation in sports bets is linked to income in a nonlinear way (the
effect is not significant for the top income groups in this study’s analysis). This possibil-
ity should be further explored in future research.
A high probability that a respondent had participated in sports betting goes along with
increased interest in sports. A higher value of this study’s measure of attitudes towards risk
Gassmann et al. 405

tends to reduce the probability of having already participated in sports betting, but a gender
effect dominates the effect of risk aversion. The participation probability also decreases
when the perceived threat of corruption in sports increases, an aspect that has not been
documented in earlier empirical research on sports betting in Germany. Given the selective
nature of this study’s sample and the fact that the effect of the perceived threat of corruption
is not overly significant, it would be interesting to analyse in future research in more detail
the link between the threat of corruption in sports and sports betting.
As more empirical evidence on the characteristics of sports bettors becomes available,
it is also interesting to develop in future research a foundation for a sociological theory
of sports betting. Before such a full-fledged and detailed sociological theory of sports
betting can be developed, however, as many empirical results as possible on the charac-
teristics of sports bettors should be assembled. Given that empirical research on the
characteristics of sports bettors typically is based on relatively small samples of data (and
this study’s research is no exception in this respect), it continues to be important to reex-
amine in future research the question ‘Who bets on sports?’.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

Notes
  1. Lutter (2010a: 11) estimates gross turnover from betting in Germany at approximately €30
billion. According to a study by Goldmedia (2013), a consultancy firm, Oddset made a turno-
ver of €185 million in 2012 with sports bets (gross yield from games €81 million). Service
providers for horse bets reaped a gross yield from games of €15 million. In total, the govern-
ment-regulated sports bets achieved only 3.6% of the total turnover for sports bets (on the
proportion of sports bets in the market for games of chance, see Financial Times Deutschland
of 30/07/2006).
  2. The study by McKinney and Swain (1993) is interesting as they describe how the state lottery
in Texas was introduced in an attempt to raise income taxes. First attempts were made at the
end of the 1980s with the licensing of dog and horse racing (McKinney and Swain, 1993:
1018). In 1991 (McKinney and Swain, 1993: 1019), the lottery was introduced to compensate
falling tax income from oil and turnover taxes, on the one hand, and increased expenditure
(education and prisons), on the other hand (McKinney and Swain, 1993: 1018f.). Lutter gave
another example for regressive taxation, numerous ‘renowned American Universities, includ-
ing Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, Williams, Brown, Princeton, Columbia, North Carolina, and
Pennsylvania were given substantial support toward their establishment from lottery events’
(2010b: 368).
  3. An investigation of live bets yielded similar results, but the frequency of the bets was higher
than in the case of ‘Bwin’.
  4. The extent to which students believe that their own decisions influenced past events, however,
appears to have only a weak effect on the probability that students play lotteries. Rather, the
belief that own decisions shaped past events seems to be linked to the probability of having
parents who play lotteries (Lutter, 2010b: 343).
  5. Interestingly, sales of cinema tickets (that is, an alternative form of entertainment), do not increase
when economic conditions deteriorate (Blalock et al., 2007: 560). It should also be noted that
406 International Review for the Sociology of Sport 52(4)

Blalock et al. (2007: 565) point out that their results are not only consistent with the ‘desperation
hypothesis’ but also with the Friedman-Savage hypothesis and with Prospect theory.
  6. They differentiate between ‘‘informational social influence’’, which occurs when a person
looks at the behavior of group members to obtain information about ambiguous situations,
and ‘‘normative social influence’’, which results from a desire to gain approval and accept-
ance from group members’ (Lin and Lu, 2015: 119.
  7. This illustrates arguments put forward by Veblen (1899: Chapter XII): ‘All this seems to
argue, on the one hand, that the same temperament inclines people to sports as inclines them
to the anthropomorphic cults, (…). Conversely; it also appears that habituation to these obser-
vances favors the growth of a proclivity for athletic sports and for all games that give play to
the habit of invidious comparison and of the appeal to luck’ (Veblen, 1899: 138).
  8. On sports and corruption, see also Forrest and Simmons (2003).
  9. Sample collection via Facebook is a kind of snowball sampling (Atkinson and Flint, 2004).
Unfortunately, little is known about how the link was distributed. Atkinson and Flint recom-
mend snowball sampling if it is difficult to reach a sufficiently large number of respondents
by means of, for example, a household survey.
10. The median age is 26 years. The median age in Germany in 2010 was 44 years (on population
structure, see Eurostat, 2011: 63).
11. Gassmann et al. (2013: 118ff) find that the monthly income of a student is €785 on average.
12. The current study used this category as a benchmark because the next age category in the
official statistic informs about the income of the 25–50 year olds.
13. Given the socioeconomic profile of respondents, they do not represent the German adult
population. The results reported in this research, thus, do not necessarily apply to the entire
German adult population.
14. This requires the assumption that the distances between the scale points are considered by
respondents to be identical, which makes the variable an interval scaled variable. See Chimi
and Russell (2009), Glass et al. (1972), Lubke and Muthen (2004) on the discussion of the
treatment of ordinally scaled variables as metric variables.
15. The mean was computed without weighting. This method of indicator generation is based on
the assumption that the level of interest in sports is homogeneous across the different media
(no weighting of the different types of media use). This assumption is plausible insofar as
there are not reasons to believe that a person who gathers information primarily from the
newspaper and TV is more (or less) interested in sports than a person who uses online media
and the radio to gather information.
16. Different risk-attitude measures have been used in the sociology literature, and in some cases,
collecting data required to compute risk-attitude measures is very time-consuming for the
respondents. If respondents had been asked to provide the data required to compute a complex
risk-attitude measure, this study probably would have ended up with a much smaller sample.
For this reason, it was decided to use a simple risk-attitude measure that is easy to understand
for respondents.
17. A model fits data well when the pseudo-R2 assumes values between 0.2 and 0.4 (see
McFadden, 1978: 307).
18. The chance of a males betting is approximately 1.39 (0.58/0.42), and for females this chance
is 0.19 (0.16/0.84).
19. The figure was produced using the user-written command xbrcspline (Orsini, 2009).
20. Because 20-year old respondents form the reference category the confidence interval is 0 for
them in Figure 1.
21. This result is surprising insofar as older respondents had more time to participate in sports
betting at some time in their life. Perhaps older respondents simply forgot that they had
Gassmann et al. 407

participated in sports bets in their youth because the forms of sports bets today are different
from sports bets two or three decades ago. In this respect, it should be mentioned that this
study could not test for the presence of any cohort effect with its cross-sectional data.
22. This study did not find a significant interaction effect between the gender variable and interest
in sports.
23. This study did not find evidence of an interaction effect between the perceived threat of cor-
ruption and the gender variable.

References
Abarbanel BL (2012) Cultural indicators of internet sports betting policy. UNLV Gaming Research
and Review Journal 16(2012): 77–85.
Albers N (1993) Ökonomie des Glücksspielmarktes in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Economy
of Gambling Market in the Federal Republic of Germany]. Berlin, Germany: Duncker &
Humblot.
Ashelm M (2014) Studie: Sportwetten sind ein Eldorado für Kriminelle [Study: Sports betting are
an El Dorado for criminals]. FAZ-online, 5 May. Available at: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/
wirtschaft/wirtschaftspolitik/studie-sportwetten-sind-eldorado-fuer-kriminelle-12941238.
html (accessed 8 July 2014).
Atkinson R and Flint J (2004) Snowball sampling. In: Lewis-Beck MS, Bryman A and Liao TF
(eds) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods, vol. 3. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE, pp.1043–1044.
Beckert J and Lutter M (2007) Wer spielt, hat schon verloren? Zur Erklärung des Nachfrageverhaltens
auf dem Lottomarkt [The player always loses? Toward an explanation of demand behavior in
lottery markets]. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie [Cologne Journal of
Sociology and Social Psychology] 59(2): 240–270.
Beckert J and Lutter M (2008) Wer spielt Lotto? Umverteilungswirkungen und sozialstruk-
turelle Inzidenz staatlicher Lotteriemärkte [Who plays the lottery. Distribution effects and
social-structural incidence of state lottery markets]. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und
Sozialpsychologie [Cologne Journal of Sociology and Social Psychology] 60(2): 233–264.
Beckert J and Lutter M (2009) The inequality of fair play: Lottery gambling and social stratifica-
tion in Germany. European Sociological Review 25(4): 475–488.
Bendixen P (2008) Ökonomie des Glücksspiels [Economy of gambling]. In: Gebhardt I and
Grusser-Sinopoli S (eds) Glücksspiel in Deutschland. Ökonomie, Recht, Sucht [Gambling in
Germany. Economy, Law, Addiction]. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter, pp.30–52.
Blalock G, Just DR and Simon DH (2007) Hitting the jackpot or hitting the skids: Entertainment,
poverty, and the demand for state lotteries. American Journal of Economics and Sociology
66(3): 545–570.
Bloch HA (1951) The sociology of gambling. American Journal of Sociology 57(3): 215–221.
Borg MO, Mason PM and Shapiro SL (1991) The Economic Consequences of State Lotteries. New
York, NY: Praeger.
Breuer W, Hauten G and Kreuz C (2009) Financial instruments with sports betting components:
Marketing gimmick or a domain for behavioral finance? Journal of Banking & Finance
33(12): 2241–2252.
Browne BA and Brown DJ (1994) Predictors of lottery gambling among American college stu-
dents. Journal of Social Psychology 134(3): 339–347.
Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung [Federal Centre for Health Education] (eds) (2012)
Glücksspielverhalten und Glücksspielsucht in Deutschland. Ergebnisse aus drei repräsenta-
tiven Bevölkerungsbefragungen 2007, 2009 und 2011 [Gambling Behavior and Gambling
408 International Review for the Sociology of Sport 52(4)

Addiction in Germany. Results of Three Representative Population Surveys 2007, 2009 and
2011]. Köln, Germany: Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung (BZgA).
Chimi CJ and Russell DL (2009) The Likert scale: A proposal for improvement using quasi-
continuous variables. The Proceedings of the Information Systems Education Conference 26:
1–10.
Daumann F, Römmelt B and Heinze R (2011) Forschungsreport - Der Markt für Sportwetten in
Deutschland aus Bevölkerungsperspektive [Research report. The market for sports betting in
Germany from the point of view of population]. Sciamus – Sport und Management 3: 28–31.
Eadington WR (1987) Economic perceptions of gambling behavior. Journal of Gambling Studies
3(4): 264–273.
Elias N and Dunning E (2003) Sport und Spannung im Prozess der Zivilisation [Quest for
Excitement: Sport and Leisure in the Civilising Process]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany:
Suhrkamp.
Endes S and Feldner W (2012) Sportwetten - zu jeder Zeit aktuell [Sports betting - at all times
up-to-date]. In: Kainz F, Scherrer U and Werner C (eds) Sportfinanzierung und Sportwetten.
Reflexionen zu Phänomenen, Möglichkeiten und Gefahren im kommerziellen Sport [Sports
Financing and Sports Betting. Reflections on Phenomenons, Possibilities, and Threats in
Commercial Sports]. Stuttgart, Germany; Wien, Germany; Zürich, Switzerland: Boorberg;
Sramek; Schulthess, pp.79–86.
Eurostat (2011) Demography Report 2010. Older, More Numerous and Diverse Europeans.
Available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KE-ET-10-001/EN/
KE-ET-10-001-EN.PDF (accessed 28 January 2014).
Forrest D and Simmons R (2003) Sports and gambling. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 19(4):
598–611.
Gassmann F, Emrich E and Meyer W (2013) Die wirtschaftliche Lage und die Beschäftigungssituation
saarländischer Studierender: Bildungsinvestitionen und Konsumverhalten der Studierenden
[The economic situation and employment situation of Saarland students: Education invest-
ments and consumer behavior of students]. In: Emrich E, Meyer W and Rampeltshammer
L (eds) Die Universität des Saarlandes in sozio-ökonomischer Perspektive. Ausgewählte
Analysen sozialer und wirtschaftlicher Effekte [Saarland University in Socio-Economic
Perspective. Selected Analysis of Social and Economic Effects]. Saarbrücken: Universaar,
pp.103–134.
Genesis-Online Datenbank (2013a) Mikrozensus Tabelle 12211-0041. Available at: https://www-
genesis.destatis.de/genesis/online/data;jsessionid=19D4AE52B9EB77E17AE754A95FDD
32C1.tomcat_GO_2_2?operation=statistikenVerzeichnis (accessed 27 May 2015).
Genesis-Online Datenbank (2013b) EU-SILC Tabelle 63400-0001. Available at: https://www-
genesis.destatis.de/genesis/online/data;jsessionid=19D4AE52B9EB77E17AE754A95FDD
32C1.tomcat_GO_2_2?operation=statistikenVerzeichnis (accessed 27 May 2015).
Glass GV, et al. (1972) Consequences of failure to meet assumptions underlying the analyses of
variance and covariance. Review of Educational Research 42: 237–288.
Goldmedia (2013) Studie zum deutschen Sportwettenmarkt: Die neue Glücksspielregulierung
könnte ihre Ziele verfehlen [Study on German sports betting market: The new regulation of
the gaming sector can fail to achieve its objectives]. Available at: http://www.goldmedia.com/
presse/newsroom/gluecksspielmarkt-deutschland-2017.html (accessed 27 September 2013).
Harrell FE (2001) Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic
Regression, and Survival Analysis. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Humphreys BR and Soebbing B (2012) Sports betting, sports bettors and sports gambling policy.
In: Büch M-P, Maennig W and Schulke H-J (eds) Sport und Sportgroßveranstaltungen in
Europa – zwischen Zentralstaat und Regionen [Sport and Large Sporting Events in Europe –
Gassmann et al. 409

Between Central Government and Regions]. Hamburg, Germany: Hamburg University Press
(Verlag der Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg), pp.15–38.
Humphreys BR, Lee YS and Soebbing B (2011) ‘Modeling consumers’ participation in gambling
markets and frequency of gambling. The Journal of Gambling Business and Economics 5(1):
1–22.
Kearney MS (2005) State lotteries and consumer behavior. Journal of Public Economics 89:
2269–2299.
Koch R and Maennig W (2006) Spiel- und Wettmanipulationen – und der Anti-Korruptionskampf
im Fußball. Macht und Versuchung auf dem grünen Rasen [Game and betting manipulation
– And the fight against corruption in soccer]. Der Bürger im Staat 56(1): 50–56.
LaBrie RA and Shaffer HJ (2011) Identifying behavioral markers of disordered Internet sports
gambling. Addiction Research & Theory 19(1): 56–65.
LaBrie RA, et al. (2007) Assessing the playing field: A prospective longitudinal study of Internet
sports gambling behavior. Journal of Gambling Studies 23(3): 347–362.
Lin HW and Lu HF (2015) Elucidating the association of sports lottery bettors’ socio-demo-
graphics, personality traits, risk tolerance and behavioural biases. Personality and Individual
Differences 73: 118–126.
Lohmann H (2010) Nicht-Linearität und Nicht-Additivität in der multiplen Regression:
Interaktionseffekte, Polynome und Splines [Non-linearity and non-additivity in the multi-
ple regression: Interaction terms, polynomials, and splines]. In: Wolf C and Best H (eds)
Handbuch der sozialwissenschaftlichen Datenanalyse [Handbook of Social Science Data
Analysis]. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp.677–706.
Lubke GH and Muthen BO (2004) Applying multigroup confirmatory factor models for continu-
ous outcomes to Likert scale data complicates meaningful group comparisons. Structural
Equation Modeling 11(4): 514–534.
Lutter M (2010a) Märkte für Träume: Die Soziologie des Lottospiels [Markets for Dreams: The
Sociology of Lottery]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany; New York, NY: Campus Verlag.
Lutter M (2010b) Zur Erklärung von Diffusionsprozessen. Das Beispiel der Einführung staatlicher
Lotterien in den USA [Explaining diffusion: The introduction of state lotteries in the USA].
Zeitschrift für Soziologie [Journal of Sociology] 39(5): 363–381.
McFadden D (1978) Quantitative methods for analyzing travel behavior of individuals: Some
recent developments. In: Hensher DA and Stopher PR (eds) Behavioral Travel Modeling.
London, UK: Croom Helm, pp.279–318.
McKelvey S (2004) The growth in marketing alliances between US professional sport and legal-
ised gambling entities: Are we putting sport consumers at risk? Sport Management Review
7(2): 193–210.
McKinney EB and Swain JW (1993) State lotteries: Explaining their popularity. International
Journal of Public Administration 16(7): 1015–1033.
Mintas L (2009) Glücksspiele im Internet. Insbesondere Sportwetten mit festen Gewinnquoten
(Oddset-Wetten) unter strafrechtlichen, verwaltungsrechtechtlichen und europarechtli-
chen Gesichtspunkten (Schriften zum Strafrecht, 204) [Games of Chance on the Internet.
Especially Sports Betting with Fixed Odds (Oddset-Betting) from the Point of View of
Criminal, Administrative, and European Law, 204]. Berlin, Germany: Duncker & Humblot.
Orsini N (2009) xbrcspline – Differences in predicted responses after restricted cubic spline mod-
els. Available at: http://www.stata.com/meeting/sweden09/se09_orsini.pdf (accessed 24
January 2014).
Paul RJ and Weinbach AP (2010) The determinants of betting volume for sports in North America:
Evidence of sports betting as consumption in the NBA and NHL. International Journal of
Sport Finance 5(2): 128–140.
410 International Review for the Sociology of Sport 52(4)

Rebeggiani L and Breuer M (2015) Neue Ordnung, neues Glück? Ordnungspolitische und fiska-
lische Aspekte des deutschen Sportwettenmarktes [New order, new luck? Regulatory and
fiscal aspects of of the German sports betting market]. In: 19 Jahrestagung des Arbeitskreises
Sportökonomie [19th annual meeting of the Arbeitskreis Sportökonomie], Leipzig, 23–25
April. Leipzig, Germany: Sportwissenschaftliche Fakultät, Universität Leipzig, pp.5–6.
Reiche D (2013) The prohibition of online sports betting: A comparative analysis of Germany and
the United States. European Sport Management Quarterly 13(3): 293–314.
Spöring T (2012) Von “Asian Handicap” bis “Zweierkombi”: Einführung in die Theorie der
Sportwetten [Form “Asian Handicap” to “Zweierkombi”: Introduction into the theory
of sports betting]. In: Kainz F, Scherrer U and Werner C (eds) Sportfinanzierung und
Sportwetten. Reflexionen zu Phänomenen, Möglichkeiten und Gefahren im kommerziellen
Sport [Sports Financing and Sports Betting. Reflections on Phenomenons, Possibilities, and
Threats in Commercial Sports]. Stuttgart, Germany; Wien, Germany; Zürich, Switzerland:
Boorberg; Sramek; Schulthess, pp.103–108.
Statistisches Bundesamt [Federal Statistics Office] (2013) Bildungsstand. Bevölkerung nach
Bildungsabschluss in Deutschland. Available at: https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/
GesellschaftStaat/BildungForschungKultur/Bildungsstand/Tabellen/Bildungsabschluss.
html(accessed 24 September 2014).
Statistisches Bundesamt [Federal Statistics Office] (2011). Einkommen, Einnahmen und
Ausgaben. Einkommen, Einnahmen und Ausgaben privater Haushalte 2011 in den
Gebietsständen. Available at: https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/
EinkommenKonsumLebensbedingungen/EinkommenEinnahmenAusgaben/Tabellen/
Gebietsstaende_LWR.html (accessed 24 September 2014).
Veblen T (1899) The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions. New York,
NY: Macmillan.
Weiss SM and Loubier SL (2010) Gambling habits of athletes and nonathletes classified as disor-
dered gamblers. The Journal of Psychology 144(6): 507–521.
Welte JW, et al. (2002) Gambling participation in the US—Results from a national survey. Journal
of Gambling Studies 18(4): 313–337.
Wicker P and Soebbing BP (2012) Examining participation in sports betting in Germany. The
Journal of Gambling Business and Economics 6(3): 17–33.