UK racing ramps up fight against affordability checks

[The Buzz]

An open letter from a coalition of British racing stakeholders to Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy marks a coordinated escalation in the sport’s campaign against the UK government’s proposed gambling affordability checks. The signatories argue that the policy would be both economically harmful and unworkable in practice.

Backed by more than 400 figures across the industry – including trainers, racecourse executives, owners, breeders and politicians – the letter urges the government to pause or rethink the introduction of financial risk checks before they receive final approval from the Gambling Commission.

Key points from the letter:

• The letter argued that while the original intent of affordability checks of protecting vulnerable consumers was “sensible,” the current implementation has “failed” and risks producing significant unintended consequences.
• The signatories contend that the proposed system introduces friction and intrusive data requirements that are disproportionate to typical betting activity.
• It likens them to checks “more appropriate for securing a mortgage” than participating in a legal leisure activity.

Read the letter here: https://www.britishhorseracing.com/o...lisa-nandy-mp/

[JustArt]

The friction argument is the right one to make, but the industry keeps making it too late. The moment affordability checks get written into Gambling Commission policy, the debate shifts from "should we do this" to "how do we implement this" — and that's already happened here.
The real unintended consequence nobody wants to say out loud: players don't stop gambling when you add friction, they move to unlicensed operators who ask nothing. Every check that pushes a regulated player offshore is a worse outcome for consumer protection than no check at all.

[newcustomeroffer]

Every check that pushes a regulated player offshore is a worse outcome for consumer protection than no check at all.

It's also a worse outcome for the government in terms of tax receipts, although whether anyone there is bright enough to understand that is debatable.