It’s always interesting to see stories from the betting world hit the mainstream media and that is what happened yesterday with the news of the huge William Hill fine. The problems arise from the coverage and debate that follows. At the moment there is simply no middle ground when discussing some of these sensitive subjects. It seems everyone is either in the gambling should be a free for all camp or the all gambling should be banned/heavily restricted camp.
I understand that there are often huge incentives to take the various positions they do but it doesn’t mean it makes sense. I see some prominent figures on Twitter who are in the it’s an affront to our civil liberties to bring in any restrictions on peoples ability to gamble. It’s their money. They should be able to do as they please. What will be next? Alcohol, Food etc. Where will it end? People who are rubbishing the impact that problem gambling can have on people/families. Zero empathy or acknowledgement that an issue exists.
My favourite is bookmakers saying everyone has a right to be able to place a bet. The irony that they then restrict all and sundry seems to be wasted on them. What they really mean is that everyone who loses money should be able to place a bet. It’s the predatory nature of how betting now is, that I think it being a free for all, is simply off the table. You only have to see the William Hill stories to realise there is an issue that needs addressing. I have heard many worse stories as well.
I can understand why some entities are pushing back. It hits them in the pocket. It costs them money. It’s why the Racing Post takes such a myopic opinion on this stuff. Their paymasters are the bookies and restrictions like Affordability Checks will impact them.
On the other side you have entities such as ‘Gambling with lives’. I can understand their point of view to an extent given the devastation that gambling has had on them. That doesn’t mean all gambling should be banned or even heavily restricted. One of the problems is the huge growth of the safer/anti gambling groups in recent times. Some serve a great purpose. Many are self serving. It’s very difficult to differentiate between them at times and what their motives are.
I am not advocating a lack of self responsibility. If you place bets and they lose then that is on you as an individual. You have to own that. It’s not some freeroll. Plenty can be done though to help limit that damage without ruining it for everyone else. Betting at its purest is a fascinating battle of wits and opinions. Unfortunately, those days are long gone and we are left with a very different industry.
I have always been a huge advocate that the bookmakers have a responsibility to prevent life changing moments. By that I mean someone losing everything they have in the space of a few hours. If they do it over a year there is very little that can be done to stop that. We saw with the William Hill stories that issue just hasn’t been sorted satisfactorily.
You don’t have to just fit into one camp on the polar opposites. You can be very pro gambling, think the bookmakers have behaved deplorably and that some measures and checks need to be put into place. You can also not like gambling but understand people enjoy it, have no issues with it and if they choose to spend a lot of their money on it, that is their right to do so. There is a common sense middle ground. It just seems very absent in all the coverage I see. Maybe it is just a reflection on society today and social media in particular that everything always has to be so extreme one way or another. Such extreme views dont do the industry any favours particularly when under the glare of something like the BBC.
ProPunting 