RACING may be temporarily saved from oblivion with a dramatic late change in Government policy on affordability checks – but for how long only time will tell.
Sources in Westminster tell me an announcement is nigh which will positively move the goalposts for the expected starting point of intrusive checks on gamblers.
GettyThe crowds at Aintree showed how important it is to our social fabric that people can be allowed to enjoy a bet responsibly[/caption]
But there is a catch. The beneficial new figures will be part of a trial or bedding-in period, and by the time anything is set in stone it’s likely to be a different leadership which decides their fate.
The consequences of that is anyone’s guess.
Racing has been in limbo – and losing income by the day – waiting for Government to decide exactly how it’s going to clamp down on punters in an attempt to curtail problem gamblers.
As a result of the expected bad news, bookmakers have already been insisting on all sorts of information from backers should they want to use their hard-earned cash for gambling.
Many have refused to play ball.
The situation has resulted in a huge drop in bookmaker turnover, and as a result a dramatic loss in income for racing.
In simple terms, the less bet and lost causes a reduction in funding for the sport.
Bookmakers send back to racing 10 per cent of gross profits – annually in the region of £100million.
It’s not simply profit, as many say, as they pay media rights, tax, wages, utilities, operational costs and marketing before they make any cash.
Checks were first introduced in 2021 after the Gambling Commission mandated that bookies must assess customer affordability, but became government policy only this time last year when the gambling white paper set out proposals for what it termed financial risk checks.
These are structured in two tiers, with the first check kicking in at a net spend of just £125 over 30 days or £500 in a year, equivalent to spending £1.37 a day, less than half the price of a typical high street coffee.
But my information is that now a significantly higher monthly and yearly loss figure has been agreed before a punter will have to divulge sensitive personal information like bank transactions and savings.
This is no doubt good news for racing.
But ultimately the same issues remain, and those in Westminster claim that the BHA has a huge amount to answer for in that they were allegedly complacent and badly advised at the start of the process.
Frustratingly, racing has failed to detach itself from being linked to the same conversations as online casino activities.
The latter are, of course, games of chance, while for many racing is seen as an intellectual pursuit.
Gambling addicts caught up in affordability checks at any level can simply turn to the unregulated black market.
And the tiny percentage of big players who prop up the sport with significant turnover – and as a result those who naturally enjoy major wins but also suffer significant losing streaks – will still end up having to comply with checks put in place.
Whether they do so will be absolutely crucial for the funding of British racing under its current system.
“}]]