Affordability checks – how worried should you be?
The UK government’s meddling in the betting industry
If it isn’t hard enough to make money at betting… finding winners, getting prices, keeping accounts open…
The latest obstacle to be potentially put in the way of punters to win money at horseracing (betting on any sport, as it happens) are the much maligned “affordability checks” which bookmakers have been demanding / might be requiring / could be forced to impose – depending on who you wish to believe.
Of course, there has always been a puritanical streak within society that continually wages war against betting of any form. And that’s a debate for another day.
But as if backers don’t have enough hoops to jump through in order to make a profit at betting, these personal intrusions into our private dealings are seen to be a Becher’s Brook too far.
What are betting affordability checks?
As stated in the Racing Post today (January 31st)…
However, bookmakers have introduced intrusive financial checks on punters requesting financial details such as bank statements and P60s for fear of heavy punishment from the Gambling Commission. Estimates have put the cost of the checks already in place to the sport’s finances at £40 million.”
And some further background to this was reported by the paper last December…
“For the last two years a sword of Damocles has been hanging over bookmakers and racing as they wait for the government to emerge from its recent turmoil and finally deliver the gambling review white paper, a document which is critical to the future of both industries.
Controversial affordability checks are likely to figure in some form as part of the government’s proposals, which are finally expected to be published next month, more than two years after the review was launched.
Such checks are an attempt to prevent people spending beyond their means on gambling, something neither sector should wish to happen.”
It has also been picked up in the mainstream UK press…
As the Daily Mail reported back in April 2022 – “A long-delayed gambling white paper is now set to be unveiled in the next few weeks by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport… the most far-reaching proposal is understood to be a new system of industry-wide checks on whether problem gamblers can afford the losses they run up online, as well as where the money was coming from if they continued to fund such losses.”
There’s also a good article by Barry Glendenning in the Guardian – read it in full here.
The title “Gambling affordability checks by control freaks would be threat to civil liberties” says it all!
So on the one hand the government want to be seen to be policing the industry, saving (reckless) punters from themselves – you might say.
However, the counter argument from punters, and those within the racing industry, is that such checks, if implemented, will have a massive financial impact on the way in which bookmakers, and us punters, operate.
And in a pre-emptive strike, possibly to lessen the Gambling Commission, and so the government’s, interference, many bookmakers are already starting to introduce more stringent account checks on their customers.
Today’s Post article stated… “bookmakers have introduced intrusive financial checks on punters requesting financial details such as bank statements and P60s for fear of heavy punishment from the Gambling Commission. Estimates have put the cost of the checks already in place to the sport’s finances at £40 million.”
So despite any laws being passed, no matter how severe they might be, the layers are trying to be seen to put their house in order.
But this still doesn’t sit well with many within the business.
Dissenting voices within the industry
From the same January piece by Bill Barber (read it in full here)…
“The founder of the hugely successful Highclere Thoroughbred Racing operation has spoken of his fears that British racing could be “ripped to pieces” by the impact of intrusive affordability checks.
Highclere racing manager Harry Herbert said the potential consequences had hit him like “a juggernaut” having heard of the experiences of affordability checks from some of his shareholders, and that they might consider whether to continue in ownership as a result of them.”
And the paper has also quoted other noted figures…
“Philip Davies MP blasted the betting industry regulator for pressurising bookmakers into requesting sensitive financial information from punters to enable them to bet, while renowned professional gambler Harry Findlay said the body “doesn’t know what it’s doing” and Thoroughbred Group chief executive Charlie Parker called its actions “frankly bizarre”.
The comments come after the Racing Post revealed high-staking punter, racecourse bookmaker and poker player Joe Beevers had closed accounts with Betfair and Smarkets after the firms requested extensive documentation to allow his betting to continue, including bank statements from friends who had made payments to him.”
The result seems to be an industry which is paralysed, at best, by the threat of severe intervention from outside… to one, at worst, which is using a scatter(machine)gun approach to disrupt and deter their own clients.
And there’s a clear conflict of interest between those in the government, notably the Treasury, who want to keep the betting industry onside, as a source of ready funds. Compared to the Department of Culture, Media & Sport (DCSM) who are driving the cause for change.
Thankfully in most Whitehall power struggles of this nature, it tends to be those at No.11 Downing Street who prevail, but it is indeed an uncertain time for everyone concerned with betting – whichever side of the fence they’re on!!
As this rumbles on…
And no matter what your politics…
I would draw your attention to the words of one Tory who articulates the argument extremely well.
Philip Davies, Conservative MP for Shipley, believes the regulator is “out of control”.
He said: “We have got to get away from this idea that bookmakers, the Gambling Commission or the government can decide how much each person can afford to gamble. The only person who knows how much they can afford to gamble is the individual and yet individual responsibility has been removed from the equation completely.”
For once a politician who seems to understand the argument, and defends us a punters to bet (and win or lose) as we so choose.
And long may this civil liberty continue!!
OPINION: Without doubt there are laws in society which can be classed as “saving people from themselves” – and these are a good thing. However, there are also instances where the intervention of government into our personal lives, no matter how noble spirited this might appear (to some), where it seems to over-step the mark. And by trying to save the minority, ends up penalising the majority. Problem gambling is indeed an issue, and must be taken seriously. But this must also be balanced with a level of personal responsibility and freedom.
