BETTER CHANGE
When one door closes…
Better Change’s engagement director, Rob Mabbett, raises an alcohol-free glass to 2024 and looks forward to an exciting 2025.
probably will be, I am currently abstaining from drink in an attempt to complete a dry January to atone for the festive excess of last year, but I write this article very much “glass half full” in anticipation of what 2025 will bring for our industry.
A
We left 2024 with the news in the UK that two proposals from the gambling act review white paper will be pushed through in the new year. These are online stake limits of five pounds with a reduced limit of two pounds for 18–24-year-olds, and the introduction of a mandatory levy to provide consistent income for the research, prevention and treatment of gambling harm. Neither of these came as a huge surprise but within the detail there is a very clear message to the industry and a lesson that we need to learn quickly if we are to thrive
22 JANUARY 2025
very happy new year everyone and welcome to the first Better Change article of 2025. Like many of you
as an industry in the face of punitive restrictions and taxes and it is this: People outside of gambling do not understand gambling. The gambling act review in the UK has entered its fifth year and if there is one thing that we have learnt it is that those in government roles tasked with completing the review (and there have been many) have completely disregarded what it is that makes gambling enjoyable for millions of people, focussing instead on what makes it harmful to a small minority.
I don’t blame them for this of course, governments have the unenviable task of trying to balance their level of intervention in the interests of public health whilst providing the population with the freedom of choice that it craves across a whole range of commodities. The issue came with the information that was presented to them. From the very beginning at the end of 2020 when the review was launched
the narrative was that gambling was a public health issue. This led to a scenario where the regulated industry was permanently in defence mode having to answer to often greatly exaggerated claims form public health and lobbying bodies about the extent of gambling harm, (this was evident with the grossly irresponsible “one a day” narrative around gambling related suicides that was continually used despite the data being shown to be massively flawed) or the reputation of the industry and its reticence to do anything to protect its players. One of my favourite claims here was that “four legs matter, two legs don’t” this was aimed at the fact that the horse racing levy was greater than the industries voluntary contribution to research, education and treatment or RET. This comparing of apples and oranges would be commonplace, but I don’t blame the public health sector either. Their mission is to make anything sound as bad
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84
