Racing’s £3bn Gamble: Bookmakers, Blame, & the Mirror Nobody Wants to Look Into

Picture the scene: the Racing Establishment gathers in a plush boardroom, the smell of stale coffee mingling with the faint whiff of desperation. The numbers are grim. "We need to do something, anything, lets write to the government, Nandy and Starmer, after all meeting the government didnt achieve anything."

In a statement written on behalf of British racing's stakeholders,( National Trainers Federation (NTF), Racehorse Owners Association (ROA) and Racecourse Association (RCA), Arena Racing Company (Arc)),Arena Racing Company (Arc) chief executive Martin Cruddace criticised the Gambling Commission. Note (No representation of punters,jockeys or stable staff)

"We will shortly be writing to the secretary of state and prime minister to outline our major concerns with these figures. Bluntly, the Gambling Commission increasingly appears to be unaccountable and out of control. Moreover, it continues to be unable to demonstrate any evidence as to the impact that the current affordability measures are having on problem gambling rates.

It is well established that the commission wishes to introduce affordability checks on a minimal sum per day sitting at a similar rate to a range of everyday items from a child's Happy Meal at McDonald's or a ticket to the cinema."

It continues in a simialr vain..........................................

A £3 billion plunge in betting turnover, revenue streams evaporating faster than a pint in the paddock bar. The culprit? Naturally, the Gambling Commission, that “unaccountable and out-of-control” behemoth imposing affordability checks so stringent you’d need a letter from your bank manager to justify a fiver each way.

But while the Gambling Commission is a convenient villain, let’s not kid ourselves: British racing’s problems didn’t start with affordability checks, and they won’t end by merely pointing fingers. Behind the scenes, sharp practices by bookmakers, infighting among stakeholders, and a racecourse cartel siphoning off media rights revenue have all played their part in this sorry saga. Racing, it seems, has spent more time reacting to the changing gambling landscape than preparing for it, and now it’s reaping what it sowed. No strategy, no vision just a bunch of racing groups infighting until they have a common enemy.

The Bookmakers: Sharp Practice and Profit Margins

Bookmakers, those darlings of racecourse sponsorship and the mainstay of racing’s finances, have hardly covered themselves in glory. While racing leaders rail against affordability checks, bookmakers have quietly been tightening their belts by introducing their own draconian restrictions. Profitable punters—those rare unicorns—are shown the door or capped at stakes so low they’d struggle to afford a carrot for their hobby horse.

These sharp practices haven’t just alienated bettors; they’ve also starved racing of turnover. And while Cruddace and his cohorts are quick to criticise the Gambling Commission, they’ve been noticeably silent on the role bookmakers have played in squeezing the life out of racing’s traditional funding streams.

The Racecourse Cartel: Greed Masquerading as Strategy

Martin Cruddace of ARC is leading the charge against the Gambling Commission, but let’s not forget that his racecourse associates have hardly been saints in this drama. The major racecourse groups, ARC and the Jockey Club, control vast chunks of media rights revenue, yet much of this income is quietly pocketed rather than reinvested into the sport.

Owners, trainers, and jockeys are left fighting over scraps while prize money stagnates and the sport’s grassroots crumble. Cruddace might bemoan the state of racing’s finances, but his group’s reluctance to share the wealth is a glaring example of the self-interest that has plagued the industry for years.

The Gambling Commission: Convenient Villain, But Not the Root Cause

The Gambling Commission’s affordability checks have undoubtedly been a disaster for racing. Imposing thresholds so low they rival a McDonald’s Happy Meal in cost, these measures have driven bettors away from regulated platforms, slashing turnover and wreaking havoc on the sport’s revenue streams.

But let’s not pretend the Gambling Commission created racing’s problems out of thin air. The sport’s reliance on betting revenue has always been its Achilles’ heel, leaving it vulnerable to any regulatory shock. And while the Commission’s heavy-handedness is an easy target, racing’s inability to unite and prepare for a changing gambling landscape is the real villain of this piece.

Racing’s Leadership: Reactive, Not Proactive

For years, British racing has been content to muddle along, reacting to crises rather than anticipating them. The regulation of gambling in the UK didn’t happen overnight; it’s been a slow, predictable process. Yet racing’s leaders have spent more time squabbling among themselves than formulating a cohesive strategy.

The BHA, hamstrung by its fragmented governance and racecourse ownership, has been unable to drive meaningful reform. Racecourses, trainers, owners, and bookmakers remain locked in a battle of competing interests, with little thought given to the bigger picture. The result? A sport ill-prepared for the challenges it now faces.

A Sport in Need of a Mirror

Before racing continues its crusade against the Gambling Commission, it would do well to take a long, hard look in the mirror.

• Why has the sport failed to modernise its product to attract new audiences?

• Why is it still reliant on betting revenue while failing to develop alternative income streams?

• Why have racecourses prioritised short-term profit over long-term sustainability?

The truth is that racing’s problems are as much self-inflicted as they are regulatory. While affordability checks have exacerbated the decline, they didn’t create the underlying issues of governance, greed, and inertia that have plagued the sport for decades.

A Modicum of Unity, Please?

Paul Johnson of the National Trainers Federation (NTF) has spoken of racing’s “fragmented leadership” and the need for unity. He’s right, but it’s hard to imagine a more divided industry. The major stakeholders—BHA, RCA, ROA, and others—seem more interested in protecting their own interests than working together to secure the sport’s future.

Take the Racecourse Association (RCA), which, despite its ownership stake in the BHA, continues to prioritise its own profitability over the broader health of the sport. Or the bookmakers, who cry foul at affordability checks while imposing their own restrictions on bettors. Everyone talks a good game about collaboration, but when it comes to action, the divisions are as wide as the Grand National fences.

Solutions: More Than Just Letters to No. 10

Writing letters to Keir Starmer and Lisa Nandy might make racing’s leaders feel better, but it won’t fix what’s broken. Real change requires real action:

1. Governance Reform: The BHA must become an independent regulator (not a servant to racecourses and bookmakers) with the authority to make tough decisions and enforce accountability.

2. Revenue Diversification: Racing needs to reduce its reliance on betting by exploring new income streams, from sponsorships, international expansion to innovative fan engagement.

3. Shared Wealth: Media rights revenue must be distributed more equitably to support prize money and grassroots racing.

4. Product Modernisation: Racing must focus on quality over quantity, creating a product that resonates with modern audiences both domestically and internationally.

Final Thoughts: The Gamble Racing Lost

The Gambling Commission might be “unaccountable and out of control,” but it’s not the root cause of racing’s ills. This is a sport that has failed to adapt, failed to unite, and failed to look beyond its reliance on betting revenue, particularly from the high rollers.

Blaming the Commission is easy. Fixing the sport will be hard. But until racing’s leaders stop pointing fingers and start addressing their own shortcomings, the £3 billion black hole will only deepen—and the sport of kings will find itself relegated to the also-rans.

Now, who’s up for a Happy Meal?