In August, the Gambling Commission initiated a project for conducting financial risk assessments, which implements more thorough checks when a player’s monthly deposit reaches £500. This initiative will undergo change in February 2025, as the deposit threshold is set to decrease to £150 or more. This involves the largest operators in the UK and credit reference agencies joining forces.
The horse racing sector has been vocal in its disapproval of these affordability checks, feeling they are being disproportionately burdened compared to other higher-risk betting activities like slot games.
Zarb-Cousin advocates for horse racing to distinguish itself from such areas, arguing that it shouldn’t be subjected to the same affordability checks.
“I believe horse racing should distance itself as much as possible from online casinos, which are negatively impacting the industry,” Zarb-Cousin stated on the Barstewards Enquiry podcast recently.
“My consistent argument to those representing the racing industry is that racing’s inability to separate itself from online casinos has resulted in being ensnared by these regulations.”
He suggests that the horse racing sector and regulators adopt a different approach to horse racing betting than to online casinos, from the standpoint of risk and licensing.
“If horse racing were to separate from online casinos and slot operations, possibly through a distinct license or platform, it wouldn’t be subjected to affordability checks,” Zarb-Cousin added.
“There would be a completely different risk profile for these products.”
## Zarb-Cousin Critiques the Gambling Commission
Affordability checks have become a highly debated aspect of the Gambling Act review and its subsequent white paper. The Gambling Commission previously noted that these checks had dominated feedback in response to its white paper consultations.
According to the horse racing trade body, the Jockey Club, the introduction of affordability checks could cost the UK industry over £250 million in the upcoming five years.
Zarb-Cousin insists that the Commission needs to clarify how these checks should be carried out.
“The existing problem is that the Gambling Commission identifies itself as an outcome-focused regulator, aiming for operators to mitigate or reduce harm, but fails to elaborate on how these checks should be conducted,” Zarb-Cousin explained.
“It’s not specific enough, leading to a problematic and scattered execution of these affordability checks. Operators might demand various types of information or set different loss thresholds.”
“It’s cumbersome, lacking an efficient technological solution, resulting in what I think is the least favorable outcome.”
Zarb-Cousin believes the checks are poorly implemented, overburdening bettors with demands.
“I disapprove of how the industry administers them, which is why we’ve advocated for a more specific set of rules to govern the execution of these checks and the conditions under which they should occur,” Zarb-Cousin stated.
“We’ve encountered excessively intrusive checks that haven’t proved effective, and from my perspective, the issue lies in the way the Gambling Commission regulates,” he concluded.