'Nothing positive can come out of this for racing' - Betfair founder Andrew Black issues stark warning as affordability checks come into play

Betfair co-founder Andrew Black has warned "nothing positive can come out of this for racing" as the Gambling Commission officially implements affordability checks, predicting that the new "red tape" will cost the sport customers.

As of Friday it is a requirement of online gambling operators licensed by the commission to conduct 'light touch financial vulnerability checks' on customers whose net gambling deposits exceed £500 over a rolling 30-day period. The sum which triggers the checks will be reduced to £150 a month from February 28 next year.

While the commission has said these checks will focus solely on publicly available data – such as County Court Judgements (CCJs) and bankruptcies – and will not require operators to consider an individual’s personal details such as postcode or job title, as was originally mooted, Black thinks they already go too far.

• Affordability explainer: what is happening from Friday and how will it impact punters? 

"The 'light touch' doesn't make that much difference to my opinion as I'm opposed to any affordability checks," he said. "I believe in capitalism and this essentially goes against that. We can only lose business from this, we aren't going to make business from it, nothing positive can come out of this for racing."

Racing's leadership has claimed the checks already implemented by bookmakers have massively impacted online betting turnover and estimated the government's new policies could wipe a further £250 million from the sport's revenues over the next five years.

Black added: "Of course there has to be social responsibility, but if it becomes an encumbrance on the innocent individual then you're just going to stop them from betting with all the red tape you put in their way. You'll irritate them and they'll stop, and change their habits as a result because no punter likes unnecessary form-filling and red tape, that drives people away.

"The Gambling Commission know that, they have to know that, so they know they'll annoy the hell out of a lot of perfectly innocent and responsible punters and as a result the industry will lose their business. That's going to be very damaging and they must know that.

Gambling Commission: "going to annoy the hell out of a lot of perfectly innocent and responsible punters"

"All they're doing is making life a lot more difficult for a lot of very innocent people in order to pick up one or two people who probably could be picked up by the bookmakers themselves if they were more vigilant in their checks. Well, they've become very vigilant in recent years, so why is the onus for sorting problem gambling on innocent individuals? Why does the punter have to pay the price for the behaviour of others?"

A six-month pilot scheme of a second tier of enhanced "frictionless" financial vulnerability checks also commences on Friday, in which the commission will work with credit reference agencies and gambling businesses to examine the potential impact on customers.

The commission has stated it will not operate as a 'live test' and no action will be taken on the data gathered. Losses of greater than £1,000 in 24 hours or £2,000 within 90 days had been initially outlined as thresholds for the second tier of checks, but the commission has since said it would explore financial thresholds as part of the pilot.

Black has often found himself on the receiving end of affordability checks and added: "I've been rung up many times, just getting my bets on is a real nuisance. Even at Betfair where they know who I am. I've had several calls and it's quite annoying, ringing me up telling me how much I was gambling as if I didn't know, quoting sums at me to try and discourage me from betting in line with what they feel they have to do as they're in fear of being fined.

"There's a shift of emphasis in terms of our rights, it's my business and the government are saying, 'No, it's our business', and I don't like that.

"We need to keep fighting for our freedom because this is cultural. I think that's something we need to establish. Racing and betting has got this long, historical, cultural relevance and we have a right to protection and currently it's not being looked after, and potentially it's being destroyed by too much legislation. It feels our regulator acts more as a headmaster than an empathetic regulator.

"The betting companies should be responsible for their own business and it's an unwelcome change."

Read more:

Affordability explainer: what is happening from Friday and how will it impact customers?  

BHA chair says racing must stop thinking short-term as bid to reverse fortunes is described as 'almost mission impossible' 

Joe Saumarez Smith: 'If you overregulate, you drive your biggest customers to the black market' 

Gambling Commission accused of failing to provide transparency ahead of affordability pilot 

Sign up to receive On The Nose, our essential daily newsletter, from the Racing Post. Your unmissable morning feed, direct to your email inbox every morning