The UK Gambling Consumers Forum (GCF) has contacted the UK’s statistics oversight body to challenge data released by the UK Gambling Commission concerning the number of bettors impacted by proposed financial checks.
In a communication to the Office for Statistics Regulation, the GCF has requested clarification on data recently issued by the Commission. This includes the assertion that over a million accounts will be affected by more stringent financial checks.
The GCF has also asked the statistics authority to provide feedback on the methodologies employed to gather the data used by the Commission.
The more stringent financial checks are one of many proposals put forward in the Gambling Act White Paper, published in April. The GCF stated that it was “extremely” crucial that data was presented with context, as government policy was being influenced by these figures.
The GCF stated: “Proposed policy alterations are based on the presumption that ‘only 3%’ of betting accounts will be subject to checks.” “This has been stated by the Gambling Commission’s chief executive on numerous occasions, most recently at the CMS Select Committee and in an open letter to readers of the Racing Post last week.”
This figure is being utilized to both suppress dissent against financial capability assessments and promote the concept of “seamless” assessments, despite the reality that this is practically impossible based on evidence from where such assessments are already in place.
The committee’s consultation document contains a table demonstrating that 600,000 accounts will be subject to assessments due to excessive gambling. Another million accounts will be assessed due to “substantial losses” over the past few years.
The GCF is requesting that regulators consider the figures cited by the Gambling Commission. While these accounts could meet both criteria, the GCF is inquiring if regulators concur that over a million accounts will face heightened scrutiny.
“If so, we welcome further input on the 3% figure and how the Gambling Commission and the government, who obtained the data from the Commission, arrived at this figure,” the GCF stated.
“We believe this figure is being used to bolster an assumption that financial capability assessments will be effective, despite their unproven track record in addressing addiction, and the fact that addiction cannot be measured by losses.”
The GCF also stated that it believes the Commission is using these figures to support a proposal it has already committed to. It added that this “seriously” detracts from clinical approaches to addressing addiction. It also stated that it undermines confidence in the consultation process.
Worrying about the techniques employed to gather information
Regarding how this figure was determined, the GCF says they understand it is based on research conducted by the commission. This research examined 5.86 million accounts across an undefined number of providers between May 2020 and April 2021.
The GCF states that there were 32 million active online gambling accounts operated by licensed providers during the same period.
“The data cited is limited as it only provides outcome figures, such as the total number of active customers reaching the following net expenditure in any rolling 24 hours,” the GCF said.
“They indicate a loss of over £1,000, there are 116,880 active customers. The calculation then works out as 116,880/5,867,022 = 0.199 = 2%. The number of active accounts the commission provides in its industry data seems to differ from the number they use in their calculations, 32 million, while they believe their sample is 19% of the population, thus giving a total active account number of (5,867,022/19*100) 30,879,063.
“As we understand it, the commission says there is no reason to believe that the player activity in these accounts (expected from the five largest providers) should be the same across all providers, and also states that ‘each spending limit should be considered independently from the others’.”
However, the GCF also raises concerns about how the COVID-19 pandemic may have affected this information.
It is asserted that the confinement limitations in the United Kingdom during that time frame would have undeniably influenced the pattern of online gaming.
As a result, the GCF recommends that regulatory bodies consider whether this time period is appropriate as a sample. The GCF believes that an alternate period from May 2019 to April 2020 would more accurately reflect the true situation.
Multiple accounts could impact the accuracy of the data.
Moreover, the GCF points out that the study does not specify how many individuals own multiple accounts. The GCF suggests that the data should be presented as a proportion of affected individuals, rather than the number of accounts.
“We believe that using the number of accounts would only reduce the percentage and not accurately reflect the number of individuals being examined.
“While anecdotal, a recent Racing Post survey of 9,000 active bettors found that 16.6% were asked to provide documentation as part of affordability checks. It is this discrepancy that makes us question the way the Gambling Commission utilizes statistics, as they themselves have expressed concerns about ‘misuse of statistics’.”
Commission clashes with Racing Post over affordability checks.
The news comes after the Commission last week issued an open letter to Racing Post readers in an attempt to “clarify” misunderstandings about financial risk check consultations.
The regulatory body accused the racing and sports betting publication of providing “unbalanced reporting” to readers.
Moreover, the committee declared that the publication “declined” to print the agency’s reply letter to the document.
In reaction, Tom Cole, chief editor of the Racing Post, shared a statement on X (previously Twitter), indicating that the publication chose not to publish the agency’s response letter because the agency misconstrued the disagreements in the document as factual mistakes.
“We informed the GC that we were reluctant to publish a letter if it misrepresented the disagreements in our reporting as factual errors,” he stated.
“That is precisely what this letter did. It simply reiterated the controversial claims from the white paper and consultation, without addressing the numerous concerns raised by Racing Post readers and contributors. In fact, it disregarded these concerns as unfounded.”
Sign up for the iGaming newsletter.