Illegal Betting on UK Horse Racing: Scale & Risks

There is a parallel horse racing betting market operating in Britain, and it is growing fast. It is unlicensed, unregulated, and invisible to the Gambling Commission. It pays no Levy, funds no prize money, and offers no consumer protection. A study published by the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities in February 2025 found that unique visits to 22 unlicensed sites offering bets on British racing surged 522% between August 2021 and September 2024. Over the same period, unique visits to ten licensed sites grew by just 49%. The black market is not a fringe concern. It is a structural threat to British racing — and a direct risk to every punter who uses it.

The Numbers: 522% Surge

The IFHA study, conducted by James Porteous, the organisation’s Head of Research, examined traffic to 22 of the most popular unlicensed sites that accept bets on British horse racing from UK customers. Between August 2021 and September 2024, these sites attracted over 600,000 unique visitors per month. Total traffic — including repeat visits — grew by 131% over the same period. Licensed operators, by comparison, saw total traffic increase by just 25%.

The study was explicit about its limitations: the 22 sites examined do not represent the full scope of the illegal market. There are dozens more, plus app-based operators, Telegram channels, and offshore bookmakers that accept UK customers without a UKGC licence. The actual scale of unlicensed betting on British racing is almost certainly larger than the IFHA data suggests.

A separate data point reinforces the picture. The BHA’s “Right to Bet” survey — which polled over 14,000 racing bettors in October 2023 — found that 10% of respondents were already using unlicensed operators for some or all of their betting. One in ten. Not on the fringes of the market, but embedded within the core betting audience.

Meanwhile, Gambling Commission figures published in December 2024 showed that online betting turnover on British horse racing had dropped by £1.6 billion over two years — a decline of £3 billion in real terms when adjusted for inflation. Not all of that migrated to the black market, but the timing and direction of the traffic data suggest a meaningful connection.

Why Punters Leave Licensed Operators

The migration to unlicensed sites is driven by frustration, not by preference. The primary catalyst, according to both the BHA and the Betting and Gaming Council, is the implementation of affordability checks under the Gambling Commission’s regulatory framework. High-staking customers — the kind who place four-figure ante-post bets and sustain midweek market liquidity — have found their accounts restricted, their deposits questioned, and their betting activity scrutinised in ways they consider intrusive.

Brant Dunshea, the BHA’s Acting Chief Executive, drew a direct line: “From the outset of the Gambling Act review, British racing has repeatedly warned of the unintended consequences of well-meaning policy decisions on our sport, including the threat of inadvertently growing unlicensed market activity.”

Unlicensed operators offer the path of least resistance. No affordability checks. No identity verification delays. No account restrictions after a winning streak. For a punter frustrated by the regulated experience, the appeal is immediate — and the risks are deferred.

Risks on Unlicensed Sites

The risks to individual punters are severe and largely irreversible. Unlicensed operators are not subject to UKGC oversight. They are not required to segregate customer funds. If the operator collapses — or simply decides not to pay — there is no regulatory body to pursue a complaint through, no ombudsman, no legal recourse that a UK court will enforce against an offshore entity.

Ante-post bets are especially exposed. A punter who places a £500 ante-post bet with an unlicensed operator in November and waits until March for the settlement is trusting that the operator will still be operational, still be solvent, and still be willing to honour the payout five months later. On a UKGC-licensed site, that trust is backstopped by regulation. On an unlicensed site, it is backstopped by nothing.

Settlement disputes are another hazard. Licensed operators settle ante-post bets according to published rules — Tattersalls for traditional bookmakers, exchange-specific terms for Betfair and Smarkets. Unlicensed operators may have no published settlement rules at all, or may apply them inconsistently. A non-runner that would be void on a licensed exchange might be settled as a loser on an unlicensed site, with no recourse for the customer.

Self-exclusion tools — such as Gamstop, which allows individuals to exclude themselves from all UKGC-licensed operators — do not apply to unlicensed sites. The IFHA report noted that this is not a gap in protection but a feature of the black market: unlicensed operators actively target customers who have self-excluded from regulated platforms, exploiting vulnerability for commercial gain. As Louie French, Shadow Minister for Sport and Gambling, warned: “The rise in black market gambling should be a concern for all. It was entirely predictable, and the government urgently needs to start listening.”

Impact on Racing’s Finances

Every bet placed with an unlicensed operator is a bet that generates zero Levy contribution. The Levy — currently at a record £108.9 million — funds prize money, regulation, integrity services, and veterinary research. It is calculated at 10% of bookmakers’ gross profit on British horse racing. An unlicensed operator based offshore pays nothing into this system. The Gambling Commission’s data showed that online racing turnover fell by £1.6 billion over two years — £3 billion when adjusted for inflation. Not all of that decline migrated to the black market, but a meaningful portion did.

The knock-on effects are tangible. Lower Levy contributions would mean reduced prize money. Reduced prize money means fewer owners willing to fund the training of racehorses. Fewer horses in training means smaller fields, less competitive racing, and a diminished product for the punters who do stay in the regulated market. It is a feedback loop that benefits no one except the unlicensed operators extracting revenue without contributing to the ecosystem.

How to Stay Licensed

Verifying that a bookmaker holds a UKGC licence takes less than a minute. Every licensed operator displays its licence number in the footer of its website and in its app. The Gambling Commission maintains a public register where any licence can be verified. If a site does not display a UKGC licence number, or if the number it displays does not appear on the Commission’s register, do not bet with it.

Beyond verification, the choice to bet with licensed operators is a choice to sustain the sport. The ante-post market exists because horse racing exists, and horse racing exists — at its current scale — because the Levy, the prize money, and the regulatory infrastructure support it. Opting out of that system while continuing to bet on its product is, in the long run, self-defeating. The unlicensed operator does not care whether Cheltenham happens next year. The licensed one, for all its imperfections, does.

If you encounter an operator offering ante-post prices that seem too good to be true — significantly above the market consensus with no affordability checks and no identity verification — treat that as a warning, not an invitation. The price is irrelevant if the payout never arrives.