The Regulatory Measure Reshaping UK Betting
No single policy has generated more debate within British horse racing over the past three years than affordability checks. Designed by the Gambling Commission to protect consumers from gambling-related harm, the checks require licensed bookmakers to verify that customers can afford their level of betting. The intention is noble. The consequences — particularly for horse racing turnover and the SP market — have been significant and, according to much of the industry, disproportionate.
The numbers speak plainly. In the first quarter of 2025, total betting turnover on British racing dropped a further 9% compared with Q1 2024, with average turnover per race on Core fixtures — the everyday meetings that form the backbone of the racing calendar — falling 14.4%, according to BHA data reported by Gambling Insider. Premier racedays held firm, but the structural damage to the mid-tier and lower-tier programme is accumulating rapidly. Well-meaning policy, unintended consequences — that is the tension running through this debate.
What Affordability Checks Are and How They Work
Affordability checks are a regulatory tool introduced as part of the Gambling Commission’s ongoing harm-prevention framework. The principle is straightforward: bookmakers must take reasonable steps to ensure that their customers are not gambling beyond their means. In practice, this translates into a tiered system of checks triggered by spending thresholds.
At the lower end, a “light-touch” check may involve verifying a customer’s identity and cross-referencing publicly available financial data. At higher spending levels, bookmakers may request documentary evidence — bank statements, payslips, or tax returns — to confirm that the customer can afford their betting activity. Customers who refuse to provide this evidence, or whose documentation does not satisfy the bookmaker’s compliance team, face restrictions: reduced deposit limits, lower maximum stakes, or outright account closure.
The thresholds at which checks are triggered have been subject to consultation and adjustment. The Gambling Commission proposed a framework that would require enhanced checks for customers losing more than a specified amount over a set period, with the precise figures debated extensively between regulators, operators, and industry bodies. The uncertainty around thresholds has itself been damaging — bookmakers, wary of regulatory risk, have implemented checks at lower levels than strictly required, creating a chilling effect on betting activity even where formal thresholds have not been reached.
For the casual punter placing a £10 each-way bet on a Saturday afternoon, affordability checks are invisible. For the serious punter staking hundreds or thousands per week — the category of bettor that contributes disproportionately to turnover and, by extension, to the depth of the SP market — the checks represent a fundamental change in the relationship between bookmaker and customer.
The Data: Turnover Impact Since Implementation
The correlation between affordability checks and turnover decline is contested by regulators but accepted as overwhelming by the racing industry.
The BHA’s full-year 2024 report documented a 6.8% fall in total betting turnover on British racing compared with 2023, extending a decline that began in 2021 and has now accumulated to 16.5% since 2022. The industry attributes the lion’s share of this decline to affordability checks, arguing that the checks have driven high-value customers either to reduce their activity, to close their accounts, or to migrate to unlicensed operators where no checks apply.
The Q1 2025 data sharpened the picture further. While Premier raceday turnover held steady, Core raceday turnover per race fell 14.4% — a figure that industry leaders describe as existential for the lower tiers of the racing programme. The split is revealing: the biggest, most televised meetings attract enough casual and international interest to sustain volume despite the checks. Everyday fixtures, which depend on a core of regular, higher-staking customers, are losing exactly the demographic most affected by affordability scrutiny.
Martin Cruddace, CEO of Arena Racing Company, put a monetary figure on the expected damage in a letter to the Secretary of State: an estimated £250 million in losses to the racing industry over five years if the checks continued in their proposed form. The resulting damage to an industry supporting approximately 80,000 jobs was, in his assessment, extremely alarming.
Industry Voices: The Pushback
The racing industry has not been passive. A coalition of bodies — the BHA, the Jockey Club, the Racecourse Association, and Arena Racing Company — has lobbied publicly and privately against the scope and implementation of affordability checks.
Richard Wayman, the BHA’s Director of Racing, was explicit in attributing the turnover decline to regulatory pressure. In the BHA’s 2024 Racing Report, covered by iGamingBusiness, Wayman stated that the decline was headed by the impact of affordability checks and their role in driving people either to stop betting or to place their bets with unlicensed operators, where such checks do not take place.
The argument from racing is not that consumer protection is wrong in principle. It is that the current framework treats horse racing — a skill-based, form-driven activity with relatively moderate harm metrics — with the same blunt instruments used for online slots and casino games, where the harm profiles and product dynamics are fundamentally different. Trainers, breeders, and racecourse operators argue that they are absorbing the collateral damage of a policy aimed at a different part of the gambling ecosystem.
The Gambling Commission’s counter-argument is that affordability checks are necessary to fulfil its statutory duty to prevent gambling-related harm, and that the industry’s economic concerns, while legitimate, cannot override consumer protection. The Commission has pointed to evidence of problem gambling among horse racing bettors as justification for the checks, though the industry disputes the scale and applicability of that evidence.
The political dimension adds further complexity. The Gambling Act Review — the broader legislative process of which affordability checks are one component — has been subject to delays, consultations, and shifting ministerial priorities. The racing industry’s lobbying has achieved some concessions on thresholds and implementation timelines, but the fundamental principle of affordability verification remains embedded in the regulatory framework.
What This Means for SP Bettors
For punters who bet at SP, affordability checks create a second-order problem. You may never be subject to a check yourself, but the checks are reshaping the market in which your SP is formed.
When high-staking punters leave the regulated market — either by reducing activity or by migrating offshore — the volume of money shaping SP prices declines. Thinner markets produce less reliable prices. Overround per horse tends to increase as bookmakers widen margins to compensate for lost volume. And the gap between Premier and Core fixture quality widens further, making the SP on an everyday meeting progressively less trustworthy as a reflection of the true market.
If you bet regularly at SP on Core racedays — midweek fixtures, smaller Saturday cards, all-weather meetings — you are betting into a market that is materially thinner than it was three years ago. The price you receive is still the official, regulated SP, but the market depth behind it has eroded. Being aware of that erosion, and adjusting your expectations and stakes accordingly, is part of the modern reality of SP betting in Britain.
One practical response is to concentrate SP activity on Premier fixtures and high-turnover meetings where the market remains deep. Another is to use exchange alternatives like BSP, which draw on a different pool of liquidity and are not subject to the same margin pressures as bookmaker SP. Neither approach eliminates the problem, but both reduce your exposure to the thinning Core market. Affordability checks may be a policy designed to protect consumers. For SP bettors, the protection comes with a cost — and the cost is a market that is harder to trust on the days that matter least.