We asked 10,000 punters about affordability checks and the black market. What you told us is alarming

One in four bettors caught up in affordability checks, a big spike in the use of black market bookmakers among higher-staking punters and nearly 30 per cent of respondents saying they have bet less on horseracing in the last six months are among the starkest findings from the Racing Post’s Big Punting Survey, in which almost 10,000 punters have had their say on a host of topics.

Since our first edition of the landmark survey in 2023, the number of respondents who say they have been subjected to affordability checks by one or more bookmakers has jumped to almost a quarter, rising from 16.6 to 23.7 per cent.

And reflecting the findings of a major report released last week by the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities into the encroachment of the black market into betting on British racing, the number who have used an unlicensed operator has gone up, with more than one-third of the highest-staking punters admitting to having turned to an illegal source that pays no tax and contributes nothing to the levy. 

Affordability checks: how £10 punters are now being caught up

The headline figure across all respondents of 23.7 per cent shows how deeply the reality of affordability checks is embedded in the betting landscape, despite the fact that financial risk checks are officially only being trialled and the Gambling Commission has insisted for years it does not mandate checks, a claim that critics have described as "gaslighting".

One major change over the last two years is the growing proportion of relatively low-staking punters who are getting caught up in affordability checks. In 2023, 15 per cent of bettors whose normal stake is just £10 had experienced at least one affordability check, but in the latest survey that had risen to more than one in five.

The so-called 'frictionless' financial risk checks currently being piloted by the Gambling Commission through the use of credit reference agencies would be set at £1,000 net deposit in 24 hours, or else £2,000 in a rolling 90-day period, while the interim code agreed by the commission and the Betting and Gaming Council is supposed to see the checks kick in at £5,000 per month. 

But it would be stretching credulity to believe that the one in five bettors who stake an average of £10 and who have been asked to prove they can afford their level of deposit have anything like that level of spend in a month. 

The rate at which higher-staking punters are asked to provide documentation rises sharply, with more than half of those whose stake averages £100 saying they have been asked for financial information, and three-quarters of those in the £1,000+ cohort. 

Overall, 61 per cent of respondents said they refused to supply documents when asked, while only half of those who complied with their bookmaker’s request were then granted what they considered to be a satisfactory deposit limit.

Nevin Truesdale was at the forefront of racing’s effort to prevent affordability checks from wreaking havoc on racing’s finances during his tenure as chief executive at the Jockey Club, and was the lead sponsor of a petition which was signed by more than 100,000 people, forcing a parliamentary debate on the issue.

When presented with the results of our survey, Truesdale said: “The central point is that more people are being pulled into the net. You had 16.6 per cent being asked in 2023 and nearly 24 per cent being asked in 2025, across single and multiple accounts.

Nevin Truesdale: "The central point is that more people are being pulled into the net"

“That says to me that, rather than being more targeted and more ‘light touch’ – which is what the Gambling Commission told us would happen – the opposite is happening with financial checks. It seems to be going wider and deeper, with more people being impacted and more higher-staking people being caught up. 

“We’ve always said that’s worrying for racing and those trends seem to be going in the wrong direction. It backs up the huge reduction in betting turnover we’ve seen in the last two years.”

Racecourse Association chair Wilf Walsh says the survey underlines both the inconsistent way gambling is treated in comparison with other activities and the strain being placed on racing’s finances as a result.

“It’s fairly clear that there is a severe impact in terms of betting turnover and, more worryingly, people’s desire to share their details should they be required to undergo affordability checks,” said Walsh.

“My analogy would be this: I had hordes of relatives descend on me before Christmas, so I went to Majestic Wines. 

“I bought a load of booze, I paid for it on a credit card – which you can’t do if you’re betting – and far from attempting to stop me from buying too much, all their offers were designed to sell me up and buy more stuff. 

“Nobody questioned my drinking habits or my ability to afford that level of alcohol purchase. The whole thing is totally unequal when you compare betting with other activities.” 

Racing loses high-staking punters to the black market

The threat of the black market taking a significant toehold in the UK market as a result of financial checks has been a theme of many of the warnings given to both Conservative and Labour governments as well as the Gambling Commission. Stakeholders across the racing and gambling sectors are fearful that the unregulated market could drain revenue from the levy and the exchequer, while simultaneously exposing bettors who are particularly vulnerable to gambling harm to even greater risk. 

Two years ago 3.6 per cent admitted to using an unlicensed bookmaker in the last year, while the 2025 figure of 4.9 per cent using the black market in just the last 12 months demonstrates an alarming direction of travel. 

Among those who said ‘yes’ to the question of using an unlicensed operator, the number citing affordability checks as their prime motivation has risen from around half (51 per cent) in 2023 to almost two-thirds (63.6 per cent). 

“These alarming figures should be a major wake-up call," says Sebastian Butterworth, director of racing strategy at Flutter UKI. “Even people with average stakes of £10 are turning to unlicensed operators on the black market who invest nothing in safer gambling and player welfare.

“It highlights the need for balanced regulation and for all sides to come together to ensure that the proposed financial risk checks are truly frictionless.”

The Big Punting Survey reveals two more alarming aspects of the British bettor’s current and future relationship to the black market. 

When those who had used an unlicensed bookmaker are broken down by average stake, the use of an illegal operator rises in almost perfect symmetry with the upping of the spend. 

Punters at all levels of spend say they have used the black market, with even £10 punters reporting significantly higher levels of use than those betting to smaller stakes, but the numbers become significant from an average spend of around £50 per bet, at which 11.7 per cent say they have used a black market bookmaker. 

From there the trend rises remorselessly, with around one in five of those reporting an average stake of both £100 and £250 saying they have used illegal operators, and more than one-third of those who bet at £1,000 or more per transaction admitting to placing wagers with an unlicensed bookmaker.

And if that level of stake sounds like the rare exception rather than the norm, it is worth noting that 641 people who took the survey – more than seven per cent – said their average bet was £100 or more. 

The significance of this shift can be found in the influential academic work of Liverpool University professors David Forrest and Ian McHale, whose 2022 Patterns of Play report showed how much racing's income from betting is tied to the biggest spenders.

Forrest and Hale attributed 34.6 per cent of gross profit to the top one per cent of account holders by turnover, while the top ten per cent produced 79.1 per cent of profit. Put simply, the biggest players are the ones that racing (and the exchequer) can least afford to lose to the black market. 

Louie French MP, Conservative shadow sports minister, said: "As this major survey shows, creating burdensome obstacles to betting safely pushes gambling underground.

“It risks damaging British racecourses across the country and a gambling industry that employs thousands. 

“The Labour government needs to get the balance right, or it risks fuelling a black market that does nothing to support British sports and protect gamblers." 

Stop betting or head to the black market? What our readers are telling us 

That figure of 61 per cent who say they have refused to comply with bookmaker requests for proof that they could afford their desired deposits tracks very closely to the 66 per cent who said in 2023 that, in the hypothetical situation where they were asked for paperwork, they would not provide it. 

Although affordability checks are well established now, there has been little softening of attitudes towards them, with 62.3 per cent saying they would decline if asked in the future. 

That on its own is a worrying state of affairs when it comes to levy funds flowing into the sport, but the potential for a further decline in racing’s financial fortunes is illustrated by the responses to the questions around future actions in the face of financial risk checks. 

Asked what their course of action would be if told they could no longer bet to what they consider appropriate limits after undergoing a check, only 26.8 per cent said they would scale back their betting to the new limits imposed by their bookmaker. 

Almost the same number, around a quarter, said they would consider using the black market, while 11.8 per cent said they would definitely make their way to unregulated and non-levy-contributing operators. 

Add in a staggering 37 per cent who said they would cease betting altogether and it is all too plain to see the reasons for recent declines in turnover, as well as the potential impact on racing’s future income. 

Formerly a partner in a major city accountancy firm, Andi Peters says he has handed over bank statements without too much concern but drew the line after one firm began asking for much more invasive proof of affordability when he attempted to deposit £1,000. 

“They wanted details of all my household expenditure,” says Peters. “I put it to them that the most I would ever want to deposit would be £5,000 and asked them what sum of money they would need to see from me to justify that figure; I said I would happily provide them with enough information to give them comfort on that. 

“It was not acceptable to them and they said they would be the ones to decide what is comfortable, not me. They wanted to see my tax return before they would accept a £1,000 deposit from me. 

“My name came up for detailed checks on an apparently random basis and they said they did it on something like one in 60 accounts. From what they told me, my number was up, completely randomly.”   

Racing Post reader Tom Lane was featured in a story last December over his fight with one operator which placed a restriction on how much he could deposit in his account following an affordability check, although his annual net loss with the firm was just £16.22. 

Asked what action he would take if another operator sought to place deposit limits on one of his accounts, Lane said: “I would always fight these things to try to protect others. Ultimately if one company restricted me to the point I couldn’t bet with them I would go elsewhere, but I would fight it as much as I could. 

“I think if everyone did the same, the bookmakers would soon go back to the Gambling Commission. We protect one another as punters if we do that.” 

Lane may be the exception. The fact that around six in ten people said two years ago they would not comply with checks – a very similar proportion to those who have refused – suggests at the very least that bettors know where their red lines might be, and is a huge warning light flashing for racing’s beleaguered finances.

The Big Punting Survey...

Racing's crisis: 1 in 3 high-rollers turn to black market amid rising frustration for punters unable to bet with legal bookies   

'The restrictions are nonsense' - interference in betting accounts on the rise according to Racing Post's Big Punting Survey  

Sign up to receive On The Nose, our essential daily newsletter, from the Racing Post. Your unmissable morning feed, direct to your email inbox every morning.