This affects all of us

This affects you. And me.

It affects all of us, either directly or indirectly. So we need to take action.

At this stage, the action is very small but will make a difference.

I am talking about the impact of affordability checks on the sport of horseracing. And specifically about a petition that needs your support if you love racing and want to see it continue largely as you know it.

In the rest of this message, I'll explain my thoughts on the subject in more detail; but if you're in a hurry, please take (literally) 30 seconds to add your name to the 71,180 and rising who have already signed.

At 100,000 names, the petition must be considered for debate in Parliament. We need as many names as possible so that it is discussed in Parliament.

Here's the link - please do add your voice. As I outline below, I believe we're at a crossroads, not just for racing, but for freedom of choice in this country.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/649894

As promised, a little more detail on my own views regarding the situation.

How we got here is a bad look

Racing has, for a long time now, had a reliance - arguably an over-reliance - on bookmakers as its primary funding model. Bookmakers pay a levy (tax) on profits, and they also make media rights payments for broadcasting race video and audio both in shops and online. Of course, those profits come from punters enjoying their racing but losing money; and the media rights payments are for race streams so that punters can watch the action. That's (kind of) fair enough.

But we've seen in the recent past racing get behind much less defensible projects such as the retention of large stakes on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) in betting shops. Again, racing was deriving a profit share from these machines and, as a consequence of this really poor strategic decision, irrevocably conjoined betting with skill to pure luck gambling in the eyes of many with political clout.

The fact is, it matters where the money that funds racing comes from. It matters that punters get to enjoy their recreational spend and, in my view, it matters that there is a chance to win; with FOBTs the only chance is to lose between 3% and 10% over time. By lobbying so vigorously for the maintenance of the huge 'per play' stakes, racing's parliamentary advocates implied that there is no difference between casino games and betting on horses. This, obviously and crucially, is wrong. There is a massive difference. It is the difference between certain loser and potential winner; between self-defeat and aspiration. To make those two poles one was a crushing misjudgement; moreover, they fooled nobody in government which voted overwhelmingly for the reduction in FOBT stakes which came into being in April 2019. Clearly, that hardly enhanced the reputation of the sport in the corridors of the decision-makers.

Alongside this borderline dereliction of duty was the unequivocal dereliction of duty of both the bookmaking industry and the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC), the latter an entity established to oversee the former. Prior to the arrival of Sarah Harrison to the Commission in late 2015, and pretty much since her unfortunate and untimely departure in early 2018, we've seen a painfully ineffectual regulator. Before Harrison's arrival, bookmakers failed routinely to undertake necessary checks on high staking gamblers. Indeed, they actively encouraged such play with VIP accounts, tickets to football, boxes at the races and so on. Often without ever making any enquiries as to source of funds or affordability. And the Commission palpably failed to police the situation.

During Sarah Harrison's tenure, heavy fines were meted out to a vast array of bookmakers for such failings. There was barely a single operator that wasn't guilty to some degree of neglecting to safeguard punters in the quest for profit.

But the real legacy of a decade, maybe more, of reckless abuse by operators, and an all gums and no teeth regulator, is a lasting distrust of both. What we are now seeing is a huge over-correction by UKGC under the wobbly (some might say desperate) stewardship of Andrew Rhodes, electing to burden the consumer with the failings of itself and the industry it purports to regulate.

Now we're here, everyone is on the back foot

So that's something of how we got to here, a landscape where everyone is on the back foot. As the betting industry has, like everything else, pivoted from offline to online, we've gone from almost zero regulatory oversight to the very real threat of choking nannyism.

A large factor in this is that the UK Gambling Commission is fighting its own existential battle, with many across the political spectrum calling for its winding up and for an ombudsman to be introduced in its place. This is a shame but reflects a catalogue of serious and ongoing failings. Perhaps UKGC perceive their best route back to vague respectability to be a belts, braces and bicycle clips measure like affordability checks; if they do, that in itself demonstrates they are not fit for purpose.

UKGC has undertaken not one but two requests for feedback from the betting public in recent years. They have been inundated with a record number of responses, the vast majority of which are understood to have been for a retention of the status quo. The Commission have so far refused to share the responses in spite of 'freedom of information' requests, and have stated they will not release any such information until after a decision has been made on affordability checks. In a court of law, this might be considered to be withholding evidence. Of course, I'm not a lawyer - very, very far from it - so let's consider this no more than conjecture on my part. There is (a) smoke(screen) here, though, regardless of whether there's any underlying fire.

One other key element is that racing, and betting operators, have long since resisted any move to counter restrictions on betting accounts. These prevent winning punters from getting a bet of more than a few pence on which, after a certain liability (say, £1000) seems reasonable - they are businesses, after all - but prior to that point restrictions are at best against the spirit of fair play. Worse, many bettors are finding their losing accounts restricted! And most trading floor veterans would agree that the algorithms making these wonky calls are too defensive. Bizarre.

So, when those self-same operators, and the racing industry, come out now arguing that affordability checks will lead to bettors going to the black market, they are conveniently ignoring that that has been happening for some considerable time as a result of account restrictions. Even racing cannot have its cake and eat it.

Thus, the current clamour for a 'right to bet' is actually a call for a 'right to lose', which almost amounts to the same thing for many bettors but removes those crucial elements of aspiration and skill play.

Let's helicopter up

That's so much bluster about the parish of racing and betting, but let's zoom out a bit because there's more in play here.

Geegeez.co.uk has always advocated for accountability in its editorial, which is why we provide information - data, racecards, reports - and not tips. We treat our readers and subscribers as grown ups and we have an expectation that they behave as such. So there's no blame here: you make a bet and it loses, it's on you. Cool? Good.

That comes from a core personal belief that, for good or bad, we own what we do. When it turns out well, yay us; when it's bad, regroup and do it differently next time. But we own it. That's only common sense, isn't it?

Governments, especially Conservative ones (though party politics are irrelevant here), should allow grown ups to be grown ups notwithstanding that a small minority will be unable to do that. The upshot is that proportional checks and balances are sensible and necessary. Proportional being the operative word.

We're currently witnessing the threat of sweeping disproportionality (affordability checks) around what has become a political hot potato; and racing's previous forays into Westminster have lost it many friends. Recent attempts at rebuilding bridges seem to have made some progress, thankfully; how much we'll discover when the announcements are made regarding the detail of the forthcoming gambling legislation.

In my opinion, governments should, as far as possible, be 'laissez faire' with consenting adults' rights to spend their money as they wish. I don't want to be told what to do with my dough, and I'd guess you don't either. The current proposals are a serious encroachment on that fundamental civil liberty so, while I find it somewhere between sad and tragic at how we've ended up here, we need to stand up for more than just a right to bet/lose/win; we actually need to tell government to mind its own beeswax a bit and let us be.

Signing this petition will help to ensure that Westminster and the UKGC hears what ordinary punters like you and me think of their draconian proposals; and it will also, I hope, offer pause for thought about the role, and scope, of government intervention in the legal behaviours of UK citizens. We do not need to be nannied, and the tail should not wag the dog.

Here's the petition link again - please do sign it. (It'll take 30 seconds to sign, and then you'll need to click a link in an email they'll send you to verify yours is a real email address).

Please also encourage anyone else you know who loves racing to add their voice to this genuinely important statement. Now is not a time to assume others will do this for us. Your small action here will count. Thank you.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/649894

Matt

Other Recent Posts by This Author:

• November Feature Update
• Tix Picks, 20/11/24
• Tix Picks, 19/11/24
• Tix Picks, 18/11/24
• Tix Picks, 16/11/24