British racing in turmoil over punter affordability checks

Racing in the UK is in an existential crisis. If that sounds alarmist, check out a racing website in that country and you’ll see an industry in uproar and panic over government plans to introduce affordability checks for online punters.

Champion trainer Nicky Henderson calls the measures “terrifying and ridiculous”. Fellow conditioner Hugo Palmer says the plan was “an appalling act of harm that beggars belief”, while Sir Mark Prescott opines: “It’s very dangerous and they may well achieve everything they don’t want.”

Jockey Club chief Nevin Truesdale warned this week that racing’s “financial ecosystem” was on the line and he faced “difficult decisions” on prize money allocations as a result of intrusive checks squeezing revenue.

Arena Racing, which runs 16 racecourses, estimates the checks could cost British racing £250-million over the next five years.

These are strong words, from illustrious quarters, for something that is meant to be for the good of society. Problem gambling and its purported awful effects on British society is what is being targeted.
Racing Post’s summary of the proposals for “frictionless” financial checks for online gambling – or affordability checks – is as follows:

Two tiers of checks are proposed.

The first tests financial vulnerability – “unintrusive” checks conducted when a punter reaches a £125 net loss within a rolling 30-day period, or £500 within a rolling 365-day period. It is estimated this would reach around 20% of customer accounts. Checks would use “publicly available data” and look for issues such as bankruptcy orders or a history of unpaid debts. Such checks would not need to be repeated within a 12-month period.

The second level assesses financial risk using credit reference data which would be triggered by losses greater than £1,000 within a rolling 24 hours or £2,000 within 90 days. However, when a credit reference agency is unable to provide sufficient information, betting operators need to ask customers for data through open banking or documentation. These checks could take place as often as twice a year.

Most objections centre on the morality of an intrusion into personal affairs, the likelihood of punters being driven away from the game and the certainty that black markets and offshore operators will move to fill the void.

Results from a Right to Bet survey of more than 14,000 racing punters found four in 10 respondents were prepared to switch to the unregulated black market if faced with stringent affordability checks. More than one in four bettors have already been subjected to affordability checks by bookmakers fearful of the heavy hand of the law.

Pre-eminent trainer John Gosden says he has evidence of affordability checks already pushing racing bettors to the black market. This week he was backed up by the British Horseracing Authority, which said unlicenced operators offer no protection to punters and contribute no money to the government through tax or to racing through levies or media rights.

The Gambling Commission has just completed a 12-week consultation process about its plans and now there’s an anxious wait for its final pronouncement on the matter.

The feelings of the racing world are well summed up by veteran trainer Mick Channon, who said: “Half of the fun of going to a racecourse is knowing there are winners and losers and everything that goes with it. The world’s gone mad.”