NTRWC Stops Accepting Hospitality From Betting Companies

The real question is: why was the biggest betting regulator allowed to accept hospitality from the very same subjects it regulates in the first place? With the change, the regulatory body is sending a message to the entire industry: we’re no longer friends.

The announcement came after months of media scrutiny and political pressure. Australian media (particularly ABC) has been digging into how the regulator operates. In a rather uncomfortable revelation, it was revealed that NTRWC commissioners were frequently attending industry events hosted by the same companies they regulate. These events sometimes involved corporate boxes at races, networking invitations, or what corporate law calls “benefits of influence”.

NTRWC Chair Alastair Shields confirmed that commissioners have now paused all acceptance of hospitality while the regulatory body is working on developing a formal code of conduct for commissioners.

This decision comes after an ABC investigation earlier this year exposed a few key issues with the NTRWC, and all of these issues are relevant to how the regulatory body operates.

Six of the last ten commissioners own (or have previously owned) racehorses, which is a direct conflict with the industry they are supposed to oversee. When the individuals responsible for regulating betting firms are also financially connected to the horse racing industry, it becomes more challenging to convince the public that decisions are unbiased.

The Commission argues that ownership isn’t automatically a problem, as long as people “declare” it and remove themselves from decisions where there’s a clash of interest. But in practice, this doesn’t sound too convincing.

The report also revealed that commissioners were attending industry events, functions, and race days that were hosted or paid for by betting operators. These weren’t “quick coffees,” but rather hospitality invites that included racetrack corporate boxes (which tend to be expensive) and networking opportunities. None of this technically broke a rule at the time because the NTRWC didn’t have a detailed code of conduct for hospitality, but you get the point.

If you regulate someone’s business and that same business is hosting you at events, it raises a basic question: How independent can you really be?

Many bettors who have filed complaints against betting operators have reported that the NTRWC has been slow to respond or make a decision, so it doesn’t look very good when you see the regulator enjoying hospitality from he same operators.

However, the Commission has already said commissioner racehorse ownership will continue to be allowed, so the new code will be focused more on transparency, declarations, and managing conflicts, rather than banning them outright.

This decision shows that the regulator has finally decided to create a distance between itself and the companies it oversees. Until now, the relationship between operators and the NTRWC relied heavily on the friendly connection between operators and the regulatory body, like race-day invites, hospitality, and other forms of casual relationship-building.

According to NTRWC, that’s about to change. Operators will need to deal with the regulator through documented processes instead of friendly conversations, so players and affiliates should expect more oversight on promos and advertising, and less tolerance for grey areas.

It remains to be seen whether and how effective these changes will be.