Affordability checks could drive players offshore, says leading gambling researcher Mark Griffiths

The financial risk checks proposed in the White Paper on gambling reform and now being consulted on by the Gambling Commission are not the best way to prevent problem gambling, according to one of the world’s most prominent gambling addiction researchers.

In an exclusive interview with sports betting community OLBG, Professor Mark Griffiths said: “In principle, affordability checks are a good idea, but financial limits that apply to everyone may not be.”

Griffiths is a Chartered Psychologist and Distinguished Professor of Behavioural Addiction at Nottingham Trent University, and is also the Director of the International Gaming Research Unit. He has worked as a consultant for many gambling companies in the areas of responsible gambling, player protection and harm minimisation.

The Gambling Commission last week opened a consultation on proposals to require operators to carry out financial risk checks on customers with net losses of £125 a month or £500 per year. It has also proposed that enhanced checks should take place for customers with net losses of £1,000 in 24 hours or £2,000 in 90 days.

However, Griffiths said: “The Gambling Commission always talks about the amount of money people are spending, but it is better to talk about how much somebody can afford to gamble as opposed to how much they are actually spending.”

He added: “The more fine-grained we get about affordability checks, for example, if the Gambling Commission says it wants companies to dig into people’s personal finances, there’s going to come a point where most people won’t want to divulge that kind of information.

“What they will then do is go and bet with less reputable companies, ones that are not operating within the confines of the regulatory system here in the UK but are instead located offshore with little or no responsibility measures whatsoever. This would just displace the problem.”

Griffiths, who has won 24 national and international awards for his research, argued it would be better if it became mandatory for players to set time and money limits when they initially sign up with an online operator.

“If gamblers set these limits in the cold light of day based on what they can afford, it doesn’t matter how problematic an activity could be because once they’ve hit their limit, they can no longer gamble,” he said.

He added that a wide-ranging study he was involved in conducting in Norway suggested that mandatory play breaks could also prove useful tools given the huge rise in gambling opportunities over recent years.

Griffiths, who has published more than 1,400 peer-reviewed research papers, six books and over 190 book chapters, also pointed out there was little evidence to suggest problem gambling was on the rise.

“Over the last 20 years the problem gambling rate has been fairly stable at around 0.5%, with the latest figure 0.3%, based on the Gambling Commission’s statistics on participation and problem gambling for the year to March 2023. The vast majority of people who engage in gambling activities have no problem at all.”

Other topics covered in the interview include Griffiths’ views on The Guardian’s advertising ban, the rise of in-play betting, advertising restrictions and the definition and characteristics of addiction.