July 12, 2026Welcome to Letters from CAMP, a newsletter on anti-monopoly activity in Canada and abroad, brought to you by the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project . In this installment we have:
If you enjoy Letters, please consider sharing and supporting CAMP. Now let’s dive in.
Canada Needs More Sports TeamsThis week, Rogers cemented its control over the Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment group, buying the remaining 25% of the company it did not already own from Kilmer sports for $4.35 billion. This means our favourite telecom is now the sole owner of the Toronto Argonauts, Maple Leafs, Raptors, Football Club, Blue Jays, related minor league teams, Toronto’s major arenas, and Sportsnet. For fans, this doesn’t mean much. By already being the majority shareholder, this is just icing on Rogers existing monopoly over Toronto sports. But if we did want to make things better for fans, we need to look at why the supply of sports teams is so limited. To do so, we need to look a level up the chain, at the professional sports leagues themselves. North American leagues control the supply of teams through the allocation of franchises, which determine how many teams play in the league and where they can be based. Controlling supply lets leagues manage demand; they benefit from network effects, control the labor market for athletic talent, and set salary caps to prevent intra-league domination. This control allows leagues to effectively maximize their revenue on things like merchandise, tickets, and broadcast subscriptions, regardless of the fan demand. Recent years have shown that Canadians are showing up for their teams across all kinds of sports. But if we want more games and cheaper tickets, Canada needs more teams, in more cities, and in more sports. One possibility is through competing sports leagues. Leagues like the PWHL, WNBA and NSL, are growing in popularity and interest from investors. But existing leagues need to be put under the antitrust spotlight. The ability of these organizations to restrict the supply of sport should be a serious consideration for enforcers looking to deliver for Canadians. Another gem in the Rogers family crown is nothing to get excited about. More Canadian teams to root for is. 📰 CAMP in the News 📰
The Costs of Online Gambling in Ontario Tick HigherFour years after the Ontario government allowed private online casinos to operate, the unsurprising list of side effects continues to grow. Crisis calls to Ontario’s gambling helpline, ConnexOntario, have nearly doubled in since 2020. Strapped for resources, frontline workers at the non-profit are “drowning” as they are forced to deal with higher volume and more complex calls for help. The rise in gambling related crises is a direct result of the infusion of the mechanics of gambling into the social and economic lives of Canadians, particularly young men. Gambling is everywhere young people are. Video games increasingly use slot-machine mechanics to drive engagement and spending. Roblox has been accused of hosting illegal cryptocurrency casinos for children. Advertisements for casinos and betting platforms are constant features of sports games. On Amazon owned Twitch, gambling streams took off during the COVID pandemic. Now, gambling, in the form of prediction markets is being added to financial services like Wealthsimple, blurring the line between the stock market and the casino. Framed as an embrace of personal freedom, the liberalization of gambling regulation is instead about creating a race to the bottom on business models based on predation, exploitation, and addiction. The Ontario government may tout that they are leaders “in the world when it comes to online gambling,” but it’s fair to ask if this is a race Canadians want to be winning. 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
The EU’s Google Fine Sticks, But Has Anything Changed?Earlier this month, one of the EU’s blockbuster competition law cases against Google came to a close. After 8 years in front of the courts, Google’s last appeal was dismissed, and the company must pay the €4.125 billion fine (about $6.66 billion CAD). The content of is important: Google abused its ownership of the Android operating system to give favourable treatment of its own app ecosystem, elbowing out potential competition. As one of two major mobile operating systems on the planet, fair competition in the Android market is a multi-billion-dollar question. This case is a prime example of how vertical integration can lead to abuses of corporate dominance. Google used its control over the Android operating system to control the market for applications. By tying their browser and search applications to Android, the court concluded that Google gained an unfair advantage over competing technologies. This is in part due to the powerful role of defaults and inertia have in shaping consumer decision making. When we aren’t presented with alternatives, we tend to take what we’re given. But the case is also an important reminder of the limitations of financial penalties in competition policy. Even major fines over the last decade represent just a fraction of Google’s ever-growing annual revenue. While penalties for problematic conduct are important, they must be paired with remedies that change the structure that allowed the conduct to happen in the first place. Eight years later, Google’s control of the mobile operating system market hasn’t been upset in a meaningful way, and it won’t be until we learn that fines cannot be the limit of our imagination. If you have any monopoly tips or stories you’d like to share, drop us a line at hello@antimonopoly.ca
|
Subscribe to our Enewsletter
Stay up to date on CAMP’s latest news, work and opportunities to get involved.
By subscribing, you consent to our Privacy Policy and to receive communications. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Stay Connected
Donate
Your contribution supports CAMP’s efforts to create a more democratic economy that works for all Canadians.