'Illogical and disproportionate intrusion'
Racing risks losing owners as a result of intrusive affordability checks, two millionaire supporters of the sport have warned.
The warning came after they revealed even they had found themselves caught up in repeated requests for sensitive financial information from bookmakers to allow them to bet.
One owner warned the “excessive, illogical and disproportionate intrusion” would potentially cause “many owners [to] lose motivation to own horses”, while another said he and his brother had sold a significant portion of their bloodstock and racing interests, saying “why should we provide the bookies with their raw material when treated so shabbily”.
Regulated operators, under stern guidance from the Gambling Commission, are increasingly requesting punters provide personal financial documents, such as bank statements and pay slips, to determine the sources of their funds for betting and to prove they can afford to continue to do so.
The commission was rebuked on Thursday for its stance on affordability by Paul Scully, the British minister responsible for gambling, who said it was not the role of government or the commission to determine how much a person could afford to gamble.
Among those targeted to divulge additional financial information to allow them to keep betting is a longstanding Flat owner whose family fortune, derived from a successful career in pharmaceuticals, was estimated to be in excess of £100 million by the Sunday Times Rich List.
The owner, who the Racing Post is calling ‘Jonathan’ as he does not wish to be identified publicly, raced nine horses in Britain last year and had previously enjoyed big-race success at Listed level and at major Flat festivals, as well as holding a credit betting account for more than 40 years.
Having provided a bank statement and a P60, Jonathan was asked to make further submissions by his bookmaker but declined, informing them that “any sensible and impartial analysis of my history and supplied information could not suggest that I am a potentially vulnerable person which might warrant your delving into my individual, private bank transactions”.
In a letter to the bookmaker seen by the Racing Post, Jonathan outlined that he “feared for the future of horseracing in the UK, which relies heavily on the betting levy to fund prize-money” and emphasised how the ability of owners to have a bet on their horse, if desired, could enhance their experience, with the inability to do so potentially catastrophic for the sport.
“As an owner for most of my life, it will probably come as no surprise to know that the amount I spend on betting represents a tiny fraction of the amount I spend on buying, keeping and training horses,” he wrote.
“Seldom can owners claim to make anything other than a thumping loss from that expensive pastime, but then their motives are rarely for financial gain.
“That said, part of the enjoyment derives from having a proverbial flutter, to add an extra edge to the excitement and, occasionally, a boost to the modest prize-money.
"I mention this because there is a very real danger that excessive, illogical and disproportionate intrusion into one’s financial affairs will almost certainly be resisted by many, if not most, owners and punters.
“If, as a result, accounts are closed, then many owners will lose motivation to own horses, and many punters will no longer bet on them. In consequence, the betting levy is likely to fall significantly, and the already perilous state of racing in Britain will face even greater jeopardy.”
He added: “Your statement that your review team ‘always request full unedited bank statements’ seems to reflect a worryingly overzealous, heavy-handed and indiscriminate approach to what should be a careful, sensitive, proportionate and individually-tailored appraisal of each case.”
The scope of the financial information demanded by bookmakers was labelled “outrageous” by a Group 1-winning owner, after he was asked to provide his brother’s bank statements as well as his own to continue betting.
The owner, who has had a rewarding career in finance, had previously turned over seven figures on betting exchanges before his accounts were closed after he refused to comply with requests for bank statements from his brother, with whom he had owned horses from 2006.
Despite concerns about data protection, the owner, who has bred Group winners on the Flat but has now sold his broodmares, yearlings and foals, initially provided bookmakers with his financial documentation but became frustrated when demands came for more information.
“It went down as far that if you’d received a share dividend they wanted proof that you owned the share, it was so intrusive,” he said. “What concerns me as well is that the volume of information they are requesting means it is unlikely anyone in any sort of senior position, someone who might be able to look at things sensibly and use discretion, gets to look at this information.
“I lend my brother money and he does the same to me from time to time, and this led them to asking me to provide them with his bank statements. If I grudgingly allowed them to see mine, there was no way, even if I could, that I would let them see his – it’s outrageous.”
The owner said there was "no pragmatism” from bookmakers on what people could continue to bet on, pointing out that he was not even able to participate in ITV Racing’s free-to-enter ITV 7 tipping competition as his Sky Bet account had been closed by the checks.
“If the white paper comes out and there’s limited impact from affordability checks, I’m not sure I would even want to go back betting with these firms given the way I’ve been treated,” he added.
Have you been affected by intrusive affordability checks? If so, we would like to hear from you. Email us () with the subject 'Affordability checks' to share your experiences and contact details
Read this next:
Good Morning Bloodstock is our latest email newsletter. Leading bloodstock journalist Martin Stevens provides his take and insight on the biggest stories every morning from Monday to Friday
