Caught in the Crossfire: Racing's Faustian Bargain Comes Due

The "Ending a Losing Streak" report landed last month with all the subtlety of a Cheltenham roar, informing us that 65% of Britons want stricter gambling regulation, 81% support deposit limits, and the public mood has turned decisively hostile. Commissioned by the Campaign to End Gambling Advertising—hardly a neutral party—it reads more as prosecutor's brief than balanced analysis.

And yet racing's leadership, blinking in the spotlight like Kempton floodlights catching a startled fox, appears genuinely surprised by its contents. This is remarkable, given that the sport spent two decades enthusiastically coupling with Fixed Odds Betting Terminals, online slots, and digital casinos—partners whose aesthetic qualities might charitably be described as profoundly unfortunate.

There is an old weighing room saying that you should never get into bed with a partner uglier than yourself. Racing ignored this wisdom, took the money, and now finds itself unable to extricate its limbs from the embrace quickly enough.

The sport now resembles nothing so much as a minor aristocrat who married beneath himself for ready cash, only to discover that his bride's family have been running a knocking shop in the east wing. The neighbours have noticed, the vicar is asking pointed questions, and protestations that one personally had nothing to do with that side of the business are met with the raised eyebrows they deserve. You took the dowry, old boy. You don't get to be shocked when the bill arrives.

The Report: Flawed but Politically Lethal

Let us be clear-eyed about what this document is and isn't.

The methodology deserves scrutiny. It leans heavily on Gambling Survey data that Professor Patrick Sturgis of the LSE—commissioned by the Gambling Commission itself—concluded carries "non-negligible risk" of substantially overstating problem gambling prevalence. The Netherlands case study, deployed as cautionary tale, omits that the Dutch regulator attributed black market growth primarily to deposit limits implemented simultaneously with tax rises, not taxation alone. The seven focus group quotes presented may represent genuine consensus or cherry-picked emotional testimony—we simply cannot tell. None of this matters politically. The core finding is undeniable: the British public wants change. Whether the supporting evidence is perfectly calibrated matters less than the reality that reform is coming, and racing has positioned itself squarely in the firing line.

The Original Sin

When the Gambling Act 2005 opened the digital floodgates, racing's administrators saw only opportunity. The bookmakers—those ancient partners in the curious dance of horse and punter—were diversifying at speed. Ladbrokes, William Hill, Coral: names once synonymous with the betting ring became operators of electronic money extraction devices. FOBTs offered £100 roulette spins. Online casinos generated profits that made horse racing look like a charming but unprofitable hobby. What did racing do? Racing took the money.

The Levy became increasingly dependent upon operators whose core business had shifted decisively away from horses. When Bet365 became a colossus built primarily on football and casino gaming, racing's leadership chose not to notice that the ground beneath their feet was fundamentally changing.

"We are partners with the betting industry," they would say, as if partnership with entities deriving 70% of revenue from products utterly unrelated to racing was somehow a position of strength.

The Convenient Conflation

Here is the uncomfortable truth racing's advocates have spent years avoiding: in the public mind, there is no distinction between a punt on the 3:40 at Newmarket and a desperate 3am session on online blackjack. When Claire, a primary school teacher from Liverpool, tells focus group researchers that "gambling is so normalised now, it's terrifying," she is not thinking about the ancient art of assessing whether Donacha O'Brien's mount will stay the trip. She is thinking about betting app saturation, casino promotions, and interfaces designed with all the psychological sophistication of a Skinner box.

Racing's contribution to gambling disorder is vanishingly small compared to online slots and in-play football betting. But did racing ever articulate this distinction clearly? Did it ever declare, loudly and repeatedly, that we are different—that betting on horses is skill-based activity with 170 years of pedigree, fundamentally unlike random number generators? It did not. It took the money and hoped nobody would notice.

The Flickering Screen

And so to ITV Racing, that flagship terrestrial presence which was always, if we are honest, sailing into a headwind from the moment the contracts were signed. The commercial model depends upon bookmaker advertising revenue that is now politically toxic. When gambling adverts become restricted—not if, but when—the sums simply cease to function. I would mark ITV Racing's chances of completing its current contract unmodified at roughly 5/2 against, and drifting. The broadcaster faces an impossible equation: produce expensive outside broadcast coverage of a sport whose primary commercial partners are being legislated into silence. Something must give, and it will not be ITV's accountants.

We may yet see racing return to the afternoon margins of the schedules, a curious heritage pursuit glimpsed occasionally between property programmes—assuming anyone is still broadcasting it at all. The clock, as they say at the start, is ticking. And the odds suggest time is running out.

The Future: Strangulation or Differentiation

The Levy generated a record £109 million in 2024-25, but betting turnover on British racing is down 20% over two years. The Levy Board's own Chief Executive warns this income level is unsustainable. Racing is dependent upon operators who are themselves under regulatory attack—and having never established a distinct identity, it will be regulated as just another gambling product.

The Reckoning

The 39% of Britons worried about black market growth from over-regulation are right to be concerned—but racing has no special claim on this argument. It made itself just another product in the gambling portfolio. What would the great champions make of this predicament? What would Arkle think, or Frankel? They ran for glory, not for Levy percentages derived from problem gamblers losing wages on fixed-odds roulette.

Racing deserves better. The question is whether its leadership has the wit to articulate why—before the opportunity has passed entirely.

The clock, as they say at the start, is ticking.