Who will ride to the rescue of the gambling industry?

Hardly a day goes by without a negative story about the gambling industry appearing in the media. The tide of negative coverage appears relentless and it is undoubtedly having a terrible effect on our sector. Governments feel duty bound to introduce new legislation and increase taxes on our ‘sin industry’ while potential employees are less inclined to join because of the opprobrium of their friends and family.

Much of the criticism of the gambling industry is justified. Over the past decade there have definitely been irresponsible behaviours, particularly around the treatment of VIPs, who in many cases were clearly problem gamblers. In the UK most operators would probably agree the balance of gambling advertising during sports events went too far and needed restricting, while the handling of FOBTs was a masterclass in pretending everything was okay when it clearly was not.

But among the clamour of anti-gambling stories, where is the spokesperson sticking up for the industry and making our case? If you are a journalist and you want someone to speak about the evils of gambling then you ring up the Campaign for Fairer Gambling and get either Matt Zarb-Cousin or Derek Webb on your programme. But who do you get on the other side? There is no obvious person to defend the gambling industry. Richard Flint, now executive chairman at Sky Bet, has done the best job on behalf of the industry, but we can’t really expect him to spend his life on TV and radio when he has Britain’s second largest operator to run. With no one obvious to turn to, programme researchers turn to pundits like John McCririck to put the pro-gambling side of the argument. I can’t think of many people who I would less like to defend my industry in public.

What we need is for the industry to appoint someone whose full-time job is to represent gambling in a sensible, measured and reasoned way. The message should be simple. Yes, gambling can cause harm. By its nature, some people get addicted to gambling and we acknowledge that and want to help treat those people’s addictions and reduce harm as much as possible. We do not want to be seen as an industry that encourages problem gambling or exploits the most vulnerable in society.

Having acknowledged the harm, the spokesperson should also make the case that the vast majority of people who gamble do so without problems and that gambling gives them pleasure and enhances their enjoyment of an event. As Sir Alan Budd recommended in his 2001 report, we should study not just the harm that gambling creates, but also its benefits.

Back to black

The argument also needs to be made that gambling is a human instinct and it is far better to tax and regulate it and to put clear and explicit rules that protect consumers than to drive it underground. A black market in gambling would be far more harmful to bettors than the current situation and prohibition simply does not work, whether you are dealing with gambling, drugs or alcohol.

Lastly, the spokesperson needs to correct factual errors. The reports last year about the number of children who were gambling regularly needed someone from the industry to publicly point out that the methodology of data collection by the Gambling Commission had changed and included 16-year-olds who could legally buy lottery, hence the increase in participation.

Perhaps the rumoured merger between the Association of British Bookmakers and the Remote Gambling Association will be the catalyst for such a change. Let’s hope so as something needs to happen fast because at the moment we are losing the argument badly.

Joe Saumarez Smith is chief executive of Sports Gaming, a management consultancy to the online gambling industry