A confrontation over affordability checks is building in Britain, drawing in the Gambling Commission, horse racing, the betting industry, campaign groups and MPs over a policy that has been argued about for more than five years.
The measures are Financial Risk Assessments (FRAs), the term used by the Commission and the 2023 Gambling Act review White Paper. Critics in racing and betting circles call them affordability checks. FRAs are the more extensive of two affordability tools, sitting above the lighter Financial Vulnerability Checks (FVCs), and the Commission’s decision to proceed with them has drawn heavy criticism across the sector.
The latest pressure comes from correspondence between the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) and the regulator. The Racing Post reported that BHA attempts to obtain information about the Commission’s decision-making on affordability checks went unanswered in the months before the July decision to press ahead.
Commission under scrutiny over pilot data
Racing Post journalist Lee Mottershead used a freedom of information request to access roughly 12 months of emails between BHA Acting Chair David Jones and Gambling Commission Acting Chief Executive Sarah Gardner.
Jones asked the Commission for data from its FRA pilot, conducted last year, and raised concerns that the regulator was driven by “ideological will”. The pilot information was not provided, though Gardner disputed that characterisation of the Commission’s approach.
There is a plausible reason for withholding the data. Sharing exact pilot figures, drawn from active betting company accounts, could have run into GDPR and data protection issues.
The Commission has consistently said the pilot showed that 97% of people staking above the threshold levels could be “easily and frictionlessly assessed for financial difficulties”. On that basis, fewer than 3% of online betting accounts across the UK industry would be subject to an FRA, and just one in 1,000 accounts would be unable to be assessed automatically, requiring measures such as open banking or document requests.
Racing’s funding fears
Racing has estimated it could lose up to £60m a year if the checks cut into operator revenues. The sport depends on the betting industry through the horserace betting levy, sponsorship and media rights payments, which makes any drop in wagering a direct financial threat.
Opposition to affordability measures dates to the start of the Gambling Act review in 2020. Scepticism has already cost the process senior government advisors, who have stepped down, and the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC), the UK betting industry trade body, has said it is considering “all options”, including possible legal action, against the FRA plans.
Political pressure mounts
The Culture, Media and Sport (CMS) Select Committee of the House of Commons, the cross-party group of MPs that scrutinises the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), wrote to the Commission over its FRA decision just three days after it was made.
The timing is awkward for the regulator. The Commission is going through a leadership transition, and so is Downing Street. Andy Burnham, a politician viewed as sympathetic to gambling reform advocacy, was sworn in today as the UK’s fifth Prime Minister in five years.
The affordability debate sits within a wider run of UK regulatory activity, from the UKGC’s latest market data showing online GGY of £1.55bn to the broader shape of the UK gambling market. With MPs asking questions, racing warning of lost income, the BGC weighing legal options and a new government settling in, the Commission’s decision to proceed with FRAs is unlikely to be the final word.
Source: British Horseracing Authority
