Report
Exploring gambler attitudes towards Financial Vulnerability and Financial Risk Check proposals
The Gambling Commission’s report on the attitudes and opinions of online gamblers regarding the proposals for financial vulnerability and financial risk checks.
2 - The Financial Check context
This section outlines gamblers’ prior experiences and understanding of financial checks when gambling.
In the quantitative survey, gamblers were asked whether, to the best of their knowledge, they had been required to provide details on their financial situation to a gambling company, in the last 12 months. As such, the data provided here relates to reported or claimed experience which relies on gamblers’ memories of having undergone checks and recognising the purpose of the check that they had experienced, which should be kept in mind when interpreting results.
Gamblers were only asked to consider checks on their financial situation, not checks that may have been carried out on their identity, or on where their money comes from (anti-money laundering checks). Any previous experience gamblers had with financial checks relates to checks which were not frictionless and were not mandated by the Gambling Commission. This is separate from the financial vulnerability and financial risk check proposals the Commission was consulting on, which would involve requirements not currently in place.
Among all gamblers who took part in the survey, just over 1 in 10 (14 percent) claim to have undergone checks by gambling companies on their financial situation in the last 12 months. In contrast 80 percent claim not to have undergone checks on their financial situation in the last 12 months, with a further 7 percent reporting that they ‘do not know’. These figures are shown in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Reported experience of financial checks (all gamblers) 1
| Gambler response | Total (percentage) |
|---|---|
| Yes | 14% |
| No | 80% |
| Do not know | 7% |
There were some subgroups within the data, based on gambling behaviour or demographic characteristics, which were statistically more likely than the overall gambler population to report undergoing financial checks in the last 12 months.
Subgroups based on gambling behaviour were:
- those who scored 3 or above on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) (PGSI score 3 to 7, 20 percent, PGSI score 8 or more, 36 percent)
- those who reported gambling or betting daily in the last 12 months prior to the survey (32 percent)
- those who reported any online gambling or betting activity in the last 4 weeks prior to the survey (16 percent)
- those who had 4 or more active online gambling accounts at the time of the survey (28 percent).
Subgroups based on demographic characteristics were:
- those aged 18 to 34 years old (20 percent)
- those with a NET income of £50,000 or more (17 percent).
Table 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 show the results of these subgroups compared to the overall gambler population. All subgroup data are statistically significant compared to the total.
Table 2.2.1 Reported experience of financial checks – those answering ‘yes’ (by all gamblers) 2
| Total | Total (percentage) |
|---|---|
| All gamblers | 14% |
Table 2.2.2 Reported experience of financial checks – those answering ‘yes’ (by gambler subgroups) 2
| Subgroup | Subgroup (percentage) |
|---|---|
| PGSI Score: 3 to 7 | 20% |
| PGSI Score: 8 or more | 36% |
| Gambling frequency: Daily | 32% |
| Gambling activity: Any online gambling or betting in the last 4 weeks | 16% |
| Number of active online accounts: 4 or more | 28% |
| Age: 18 to 34 years old | 20% |
| Income: NET £50,001 or more | 17% |
In the qualitative phase, gamblers were asked about their experience of ‘financial checks’ with no qualification of what this might or might not involve (unlike the quantitative phase).
Here, gamblers cited any of the following as being linked to some form of ‘financial’ scrutiny:
- age and identity (sign-up) checks
- adjacent ‘protective’ activities that are bundled in and assumed to be related to financial checks such as self-imposed deposit limits, notifications in app flagging gambler to take a break
- and even additional requests for financial information in advance of paying out large winnings, which gamblers can assume is a gambling company method to delay or avoid paying out.
In both research methodologies there was a marked lack of awareness and clarity about the current checks.
Consequently, gamblers should be ‘introduced’ to the new proposals with clear information on their rationale and purpose to counter the idea that the new financial checks would be a gambling company method for delaying pay out and any further confusion surrounding the intent and suspicion of positive outcomes.
Furthermore, it would be beneficial to communicate that these checks would be as a requirement of the Commission and government for player protection purposes and are not conducted by gambling companies for commercial purposes.
References
1 Source: Financial Risk – Quantitative Survey: 'Thinking back over the last 12 months, to the best of your knowledge, have you been required to provide details on your financial situation to a gambling company?' Base: All gamblers (1000). Figures rounded up to whole numbers.
2 Source: Financial Risk – Quantitative Survey: 'Thinking back over the last 12 months, to the best of your knowledge, have you been required to provide details on your financial situation to a gambling company?' Base: All gamblers (1000), PGSI Score 3 to 7 (140), PGSI Score 8 or more (181), Daily gamblers (97), Any online gambling or betting in the last 4 weeks (657), 4 or more active accounts (206), 18 to 34 years old (382), NET Income £50,001 or more (279).
Summary of findings - Gambler attitudes towards Financial Vulnerability and Financial Risk Check proposals Next section
Overall response to the proposals - Gambler attitudes towards Financial Vulnerability and Financial Risk Check proposals
Last updated: 13 June 2024
Show updates to this content
Formatting updated.