In our latest blog post, we delve into the recent discussions surrounding affordability checks in the gambling industry which could affect horse racing bettors. Betting companies have actively participated in providing feedback to the DCMS committee’s request for information, highlighting their concerns and suggestions about implementing these checks.
In this post, we will present an overview of the key points raised by these operators and explore the potential impact of these affordability checks on the industry and its customers. As passionate horse racing enthusiasts, We want to discuss the negative impact of affordability checks on betting customers.
Recently, there has been a push for tighter regulation in the betting industry, with some advocating for implementing affordability checks on customers.
While these checks aim to protect gamblers, It’s not a massive leap of faith to believe that they can have unintended consequences that ultimately harm both the customers and the industry.
Several major betting companies have expressed concerns about the potential adverse effects of affordability checks.
For example, bet365 emphasises the need for a tried and tested system before implementing such checks.
The company’s experience has shown that only a small minority of customers are willing to share financial information when requested. Therefore, developing an effective framework that avoids driving players into the black market is crucial.
Entain, the parent company of prominent sports betting and gambling brands like Ladbrokes, Coral, bwin, PartyPoker, and Sportingbet, has expressed concerns about the impact of overregulation on betting customers.
Founded in Luxembourg in 2004 as Gaming VC Holdings and rebranded as GVC Holdings in 2010, Entain is now headquartered in the Isle of Man and holds licenses in over 18 countries. The company argues that excessively tight affordability checks, which require submitting documents like bank statements and payslips, can discourage customers from engaging with licensed operators and push them towards unlicensed or illegal sites. Furthermore, prohibiting bonuses, free bets, and other incentives can have similar effects. Such overregulation may harm customers and negatively impact the finances of horse racing, a vital source of employment in rural areas.
Kindred Group, the parent company of Unibet, also advocates for a more targeted and proportionate approach to affordability checks. They argue that a data-led, risk-based approach can yield better results than blanket restrictions. This would ensure that customers who enjoy betting as a pastime are not forced to seek alternatives on unlicensed platforms, where there are no checks or stake limits in place.
Flutter Entertainment, the parent company of Paddy Power, Betfair, and Sky Bet, has conducted surveys that reveal customers’ concerns about affordability checks.
According to their data, 90% of customers believe that checks should be implemented at levels above their own spending, and 40% would not provide financial documents for such assessments. Furthermore, 75% of those unwilling to comply would seek out different companies, including unregulated sites, to circumvent the checks. This suggests that poorly designed affordability checks could drive hundreds of thousands of players to unregulated sites, where they would not benefit from the protections offered by regulated operators.
So while affordability checks on betting customers may be well-intentioned, they can have severe unintended consequences. Implementing such checks must be carefully considered and tested to avoid driving customers to the black market and harming the horse racing industry. The betting companies mentioned above have provided valuable insights and suggestions for a more targeted, risk-based approach that could better serve both customers and the industry as a whole.
As horse racing enthusiasts, we want to see the industry thrive and be enjoyed responsibly by millions of fans.
We believe that a measured, data-led approach to affordability checks and continued dialogue between operators and regulators can help achieve this goal without causing harm to the very customers these regulations are intended to protect.
