Have you heard the one about the bookmaker who refused to take bets on a British horse racing meeting?
It’s no joke: Paddy Power had, initially, refused to offer odds for a meeting at Bath this week as a row with the Arena Racing Company (ARC) deepened.
Another Flutter-owned brand, SkyBet, also refused to publish prices for the Wednesday card as the and blood between them and ARC, who operate 16 racecourses on UK soil, shows no sign of abating.
In the end, the two bookmakers softened their stance somewhat, offering SP-only on the meeting, in another chapter of a tale that threatens to upend British racing – with potentially disastrous consequences for the sport and punters alike.
Counting the Cost
Flutter has made no secret of their distaste at what they consider to be an extortionate rise in the media rights costs for live streaming races at ARC-owned venues – five years after the two firms agreed on the deal that would see bookmakers broadcast live races via their website and app.
When quizzed on why they had decided to pull their odds from the Bath meeting, a spokesperson for Flutter revealed: “Sky Bet and Paddy Power have made a commercial decision to remove Bath from Wednesday’s offering. This decision has been reluctantly made due to the increase in costs associated with certain aspects of our horse racing proposition.”
They went on to confirm that the rising cost of media rights payments, which they claim to be ‘more than double’ the amount paid to the horse racing’s betting levy – the fund via which bookmakers effectively help to bankroll the sport.
But by refusing to price up the Bath meeting, Flutter were in breach of their operating contract with ARC – something which left them in hot water.
And in an update that would later prove telling, ARC chief executive Martin Cruddace confirmed that his company were seeking legal assistance in a bid to protect their rights.
Legal Eagles
It won’t surprise you to learn that after details of Paddy Power’s decision to pull their Bath odds emerged, a solicitor’s letter landed on the mat of Flutter HQ shortly thereafter.
Betfair exchange and sportsbook still have Bath but Skybet and Paddy Power don’t want the bets.
So it’s not a Flutter thing.pic.twitter.com/srmw5g1LKX— samuel the cat (@inglisdrev82) July 2, 2024
Cruddace, with some satisfaction no doubt, revealed that the legal approach had worked – “we are pleased that sense has prevailed, and that Flutter have responded positively to our solicitors’ letter of late last night,” he said on Wednesday.
By responding positively, he means that both Paddy Power and SkyBet reluctantly agreed to offer prices on the Bath meeting – the other Flutter brand, Betfair Exchange, had always intended to provide odds as bets had already been matched on their platform for the Wednesday card.
But a Flutter spokesperson doubled-down on the operator’s decision to remove early odds, and instead confirmed that only SP would be offered .
Paddy Power removed the Best Odds Guarantee promotion from some of their horse racing offering back in 2022, with meetings held at ARC venues the worst hit.
What Does It Mean for Punters?
Of all the parties hurt by the bad blood between Flutter and ARC, it’s no small irony that it’s punters that are the worst off.
Pulling BOG – as Paddy Power and other firms have done – was a real kick to the gut for the betting community. It was a concession on the part of bookmakers, and no doubt a costly one too, but it also could be construed as a loss-leader for other aspects of their business.
By pulling odds for selected meetings, the bookies are also depriving punters of a chance to bet on the action that they want to.
Of course there’s alternatives – those attending in person could head down to the independent betting ring, while online punters have the choice to swerve the Flutter sites and apps in favour of a rival.
But that still misses the point: punters should be able to bet on British racing whenever, however and with whomever they choose if the sport is going to remain financially viable.
Some have described Flutter’s Bath stance as a publicity stunt – an attempt to turn their commercial disagreement with ARC into a PR battle. Whether that’s true or not, only they can say.
The bottom line is that punters lose out in these situations. And at a time when affordability checks and other tightening rules are turning some towards offshore and black market bookmakers, those operating legally on UK soil are minded to remember that without the humble punter, they won’t have a business to operate anyway.