Andy Burnham, the newly appointed prime minister, has deep geographical ties to the world of horse racing, being born just a mile and a half from Becher’s Brook, a famous part of the Aintree Grand National course. His hospital, Fazakerley, has treated numerous jockeys after race-day falls over the years. However, Burnham has only attended the races once in his 56 years of life, a fact he acknowledged with a mix of surprise and humility. 'I feel a bit ashamed,' he admitted in a recent interview, expressing regret over his minimal engagement with the sport despite his proximity to it.
Now that Burnham has taken office, the racing industry is eager to understand how the new administration will handle gambling-related policies. A major immediate concern centers around Lisa Nandy, who has retained her position as culture secretary. Nandy has already played a significant role in supporting the 'Axe The Racing Tax' campaign, which successfully resisted a proposed tax on online betting. This win was crucial for the industry. Yet, her continued support for affordability checks—rules requiring gamblers to confirm their ability to afford wagers—has raised alarms. These checks, inherited from the previous government, are seen as potentially damaging to the financial stability of the sport.
Nandy’s position offers both hope and risk
With Nandy back in her role, any hope that the new government would pause or reconsider the affordability checks has evaporated. The checks are already in motion, despite warnings from the racing industry and even some former supporters that the policy could cost the sport hundreds of millions in revenue. Industry officials are watching closely, hoping Nandy might adopt a more active approach in the coming months.
Racing leaders are urging Nandy to take the lead from the cross-party culture, media, and sport committee in ensuring the Gambling Commission offers greater transparency and accountability as these checks are rolled out. So far, they feel that such clarity has been lacking, and they want a more open and fair process going forward.
Burnham’s past and potential future policies under scrutiny
Burnham’s history with gambling regulation dates back to his time as Manchester’s mayor. He was a co-signatory to a letter that called for local authorities to be given more power to control the proliferation of gambling venues. Additionally, he has voiced support for the Against The Odds campaign, which seeks to eliminate all forms of gambling sponsorship in sports. This stance has worried the racing industry, which depends heavily on such sponsorships and broadcast partnerships.
Sponsorship deals bring in tens of millions annually, and the sport’s terrestrial broadcasting rights are crucial to its free-to-air presence on ITV during around 100 racing days each year. A ban on gambling sponsorships—unless racing is exempted—would be a significant financial hit for the industry. Even with exemptions, the loss of betting sponsorships would still be a serious challenge, as betting firms have been increasingly overshadowed by the rise of casino-style gaming and slot machines.
Long-term stakes in gambling regulation
The ongoing debate over gambling sponsorships is complex. While companies argue they are promoting their brands rather than the act of gambling itself, critics claim that such sponsorships encourage betting. For racing, the best possible outcome would likely involve clearer separation between betting on sport and other gambling forms, such as in-person and online casinos, which ranked second and third in problem gambling risk according to the latest Gambling Commission report. This separation could help protect the sport’s integrity and its public perception.
If the Burnham administration can tackle the limitations of the 2005 Blair government Gambling Act over the next few years, it could bring meaningful reforms benefiting both punters and the racing industry. For now, though, the racing world will be watching closely to see if Nandy takes action if the affordability checks end up being as harmful as the industry fears. A flexible and responsive approach in the coming months could ease concerns and pave the way for a more stable and supportive regulatory environment.