Tom Kerr and the Great Affordability Debate: Selective Outrage, Much?

Since 2018, 1,366 articles about affordability checks—a veritable tsunami of ink poured onto the issue. 150,000 people sent to a petition that resulted in a Westminster debate. And yet, somehow, the conversation still feels incomplete. Why? Because the loudest voices in this debate—take Thomas Kerr’s (Editor Racing Post) proud post on X as an example—seem remarkably quiet when it comes to the practices of the bookmakers themselves.

It’s one thing to hammer the government for intrusive affordability checks, and fair enough—punters shouldn’t need to send payslips to place a bet. But what about the bookmakers? The ones holding onto customer funds with all the generosity of a miserly dragon, banning winners with ruthless efficiency, and restricting accounts the second they smell the faintest whiff of competence?

It’s a glaring omission. Kerr and his colleagues are quick to rail against government interference, but where’s the same energy for the major bookies who, let’s face it, are driving away punters just as effectively, if not more so, protecting margins like a German shepherd guarding a scrap yard ?

Banning Winners, Restricting Accounts: The Bookies’ Playbook

For all the noise about affordability checks, it’s the corporate bookmakers themselves who are systematically dismantling the betting experience for anyone who dares to succeed.

• Winners Banned: A punter goes on a hot streak, or any streak, applying skill, knowledge, and strategy to beat the odds. The bookmaker’s response? Ban them. No warnings, no appeals. Just a curt email informing them their business is no longer welcome unless its on the slots.

• Account Restrictions: Even modest success can trigger limits so tight you couldn’t buy a pint with your winnings. Want to bet £5? Sorry, the system says your limit is £0.48. It’s a humiliation designed to drive you away.

• Withheld Funds: Some bookmakers have turned “we’re investigating” into an art form, holding onto customers’ money for weeks or months with Kafkaesque demands for more documentation.

These aren’t isolated incidents—they’re standard operating procedures for many operators. Yet they rarely seem to get the same column inches as affordability checks. Bookmakers are never named.

Why the Silence?

The absence of scrutiny on bookmakers’ practices feels strategic. After all, these are the same companies whose advertising revenue props up much of the media and whose sponsorship deals are plastered across the very races journalists are covering. It’s easier to blame the government for everything than to alienate the industry that funds your bread and butter.

But punters notice the hypocrisy. It’s hard to take seriously the outrage over affordability checks when the same publications and pundits stay quiet about the bookies’ behaviour. Kerr’s post on X is a classic example: a proud recitation of what’s been achieved, but no mention of the broader, bookie-driven issues that make betting increasingly hostile for anyone who’s not a perennial loser.

Welcome to the Racing Post Cab Office: Bookmakers Only

The Racing Post is, to borrow a phrase, a bookmaker cab for hire. Its pages and website are so stuffed with bookmaker promotions they’re beginning to resemble a Ladbrokes shop window during Cheltenham. Every square inch seems to scream, “Bet now! Enhanced odds! Sign up for a ‘no strings’ bonus (terms and conditions: there are strings)!”

This isn’t journalism; it’s product placement. But the Post isn’t content with merely taking the advertisers’ money. No, they’ve gone one step further, selling themselves as the loyal PR arm of the betting industry.

You’ll find Racing Post articles and podcasts waxing lyrical about Unibet’s latest sponsorship deal or Bet365’s market dominance, but barely a whisper about how these same bookies are systematically dismantling the betting experience for anyone who dares to win. It’s all pats on the back for the bookmakers while the punters—the people keeping the entire system afloat—are left gagged and bound in the boot.

The Silence of the Paymasters’ Lambs

This is the Racing Post’s unspoken contract: they’ll rail against affordability checks because it lets them look like they’re sticking up for the punters. But criticise the bookies themselves? Never. Why bite the hand that feeds you?

Take Unibet, for example, one of their regular advertisers. This is a bookmaker that asks punters to stand outside their house for a selfie just to withdraw funds. And yet, not a peep from the Post. Or Bet365, infamous for restricting accounts to laughable levels the moment someone shows the faintest hint of competence. Any coverage? Nope, just more glowing features about how Bet365 “sets the standard” for online betting.

It’s not journalism—it’s propaganda dressed up in a nicely designed racing form. If the Racing Post were a person, it’d be the kind of sycophant who nods earnestly at everything the boss says, no matter how ridiculous, while secretly dreaming of a pay rise.

A Paper That Can’t Pick a Winner

For a publication supposedly at the heart of the sport, the Racing Post has picked the wrong team. Instead of standing shoulder to shoulder with punters—the people who buy their paper, read their tips, and fund racing—they’ve hitched their wagon to the bookmakers, who are doing their best to kill off the very customers the sport relies on.

And let’s not forget the sheer irony. The same bookmakers who bankroll the Racing Post’s glossy adverts are also the ones driving punters away with affordability checks, account restrictions, and bans. The Post may champion the fight against government interference, but its refusal to take aim at the bookies themselves makes it look more than a little complicit in killing the sport itself.

An Exercise in Hypocrisy

Tom Kerr’s proud post on X about the Post’s 1,366 articles on affordability checks would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic. Look how much we’ve done, oblivious to the glaring contradiction. Sure, they’ve (tackled) the government and Gambling Commission, but what about the bookmakers? The real villains here are the firms locking down accounts, hoarding winnings, and treating successful punters like they’ve just found a cheat code for FIFA.

But the Racing Post won’t bite. Instead, they keep their powder dry, running endless fluff pieces about bookmaker partnerships and sponsorships while punters are left to fend for themselves.

The Final Stretch

The truth is, affordability checks are just one piece of a broken system. They’re clumsy, sure, but they’re also the result of an industry that has failed to police itself. Bookmakers have spent years targeting problem gamblers while alienating responsible ones. Their refusal to deal fairly with customers is what brought the government into the conversation in the first place.

The Racing Post likes to position itself as the voice of the punter. In reality, it’s the voice of the bookies, and a well-paid one at that. For all its noise about affordability checks, it remains deafeningly silent on the practices of the firms plastered across its pages.

If the Racing Post really cared about the betting ecosystem, it would hold bookmakers to account for their predatory behaviour. Instead, it’s chosen to be the mouthpiece of an industry that’s bleeding its customers dry and creating a shrinking betting market.

So, next time you see a Racing Post article bemoaning affordability checks, take it with a pinch of salt. Because behind the bluster lies a paper that’s more interested in keeping its advertisers happy than in fighting for the punters it claims to represent. In the Racing Post’s world, the bookmakers always win—even if punters win now and again.