iGaming AFRIKA MagazineNewsResponsible GamblingSelf Exclusion

Exclusive: The Role of Self-Exclusion in Managing Problem Gambling with Tayo Atoloye

Self-exclusion represents a cornerstone of modern responsible gambling tools that can be employed by individuals to  manage their gambling behavior. It is described as the individual commitment to be denied gambling privileges and,  occasionally, to be removed from marketing activities on promotional material distribution lists. Tayo Atoloye, Senior Business Development Manager – MTS at Sportradar, delves into this very exciting topic.

Self-exclusion emerges as a modern manifestation of old gambling bans in history and typically takes the form of an individual agreement between a  gambler and a gambling operator. Over indebtedness, breakdown of social relationships, and the violation of social norms resulting from excessive gambling can lead to severe personal, mental, emotional and public health burdens. 

The concerns of public health perspectives with harm prevention extend beyond concerns with the excess of gambling and  include dismay over the negative effects of gambling. From a regulatory viewpoint, the implementation of self-exclusion can  be achieved either through a formal regulatory decision or as a voluntary commitment by both or either of a gambling  individual and the gambling operator. The former finds an increasing number of states legislating the application of self exclusion in their gambling laws. Those regulatory provisions frequently contain mandatory and time-limited exclusion (6 to 12 months) and may or may not permit the gambler to visit the gambling arenas during the effective period of their  expulsion. 

Challenges of Self-Exclusion Measures 

Self-exclusion from gambling has been highlighted as a viable and potentially promising responsible gambling intervention strategy. Despite its benefits as a gambling harm minimization tool, several challenges have been raised. Some of the  challenges are: 

• Foremost, problem gamblers are able to find ways around their exclusions by utilizing different identities, online  gambling accounts, electronic devices, and visitation of different retail shops. This not only circumvents the  purpose of exclusion but also results in feelings of shame regarding their conduct. In the context of gambling,  exclusions have been associated with positive outcomes for those who choose to engage with these measures.  

• Despite the apparent promise of self-exclusion, it might be inferred that such tools are not able to solve problem  gambling and that at most they may only assist in providing solutions for a subpopulation of individuals. This  consideration is particularly pertinent due to the challenges associated with such tools and the fact that there is  no way to know about those who have attempted or been successful with self-exclusion without counselling or  other assistance. As such, it becomes paramount that such measures should be evaluated for real-world effects  and impacts on those experiencing problem gambling. 

• There is the inherent challenge associated with the fact that any individual can make multiple betting accounts,  some of which may not require formal identification until a later stage of the punter’s journey on the platform,  and in a laxer way, the punter could visit numerous retail outlets where no serious form of validation is required, and this encourages anonymous gambling. 

• An excluded punter can even send a minor or peer to the betting shop to bet on his behalf with a shared or  generated betting code. As such, some self-excluders may continue to gamble despite the presence of the  exclusion.  

Also, to access a self-exclusion program, a gambler needs to be aware of their irrational or problematic behavior  and then be motivated to seek the required resources to address it. This is a significant challenge in terms of  helping disordered gamblers seeking help for their gambling behavior. 

• Although there is no substantial empirical evidence, limited subjective evidence suggests that many individuals  have no idea that self-exclusion measures exist. To engage in such actions, it is likely that a gambler first needs to  possess knowledge about responsible gambling and have some understanding of disordered gambling. On the  part of the operators, self-exclusion is a substantial administrative burden for many operators particularly at the  retail level. Issues in relation to the re-identification of participants suggest that any long-term exclusion registers  were effectively redundant or non-existent.  

Implementation and Effectiveness of Self-Exclusion Programs 

As a formal practice that gives individuals the opportunity to voluntarily restrict their access to gambling products or services  on the premise that they are or may become problem gamblers, its implementation lends even more credibility to the  industry’s insistence that it is primarily concerned with responsible play, as distinct from the maintenance of sportsbooks and venues or the attraction of rapid and easy returns.

The availability of the service benefits problem gambling treatment  and prevention agencies if taken seriously by all stakeholders. Following on from this, the self-exclusion agreement  represents a concrete ethical and care obligation for gambling operators and the agreement affords gamblers some  protection and support, and importantly offers the industry an opportunity to fulfil the obligation upon which it has  become so insistent.  

Self-exclusion can be implemented in a number of ways, or in concert. At the outset, it is important to be clear about some  definitions and the different ways in which exclusion can occur: 

Read Also: Digitain Partners with Gamingtec to Expand Presence in Europe

• Online self-exclusion is possible for customers who may be concerned about their gambling online and appearing  in person to seek exclusion from a venue is another proposition.  

• Identifying a punter with a gambling problem at the retail level is another problem entirely. There are important  differences between these groups of intervention, and the distinction between African and international, face-to face and online gambling is also a significant one.  

The significance is not only that treatment agencies may need to be prepared to respond, but that there may also be limits  as well as opportunities offered within these differing contexts. The range of prevalence figures is therefore less important  than the potential availability of an exclusion system itself, as a means to help responsible players when gambling trips  up, or even as a proxy against which to judge industry commitment to responsible gambling. 

Concerning the legality of gambling in Africa, there are three broad regulatory frameworks adopted across the continent  relating to their approach to manage activity, which varies between prohibitive, restrictive, and liberal legislations.  Fundamentally, the approach governments and regulatory bodies take in governing gambling within their jurisdiction is  influenced by the prevailing societal viewpoints. While gambling has been classed as a luxurious pastime in most parts of the globe, including Africa, it has become far more accessible for citizens as countries expand their service offerings as an  economic driver (internet and smartphone penetration) to attract tourism and contribute to socioeconomic development  through direct and indirect earnings, and most importantly as a channel for tax revenue. However, with most countries in  Africa classed as being within the developing world, a significant percentage of the population is estimated to be living  below the poverty line and for this group of people, gambling remains the opium of the masses. 

The implementation of self-exclusion programs across Africa is still in its early stages, and awareness of such opportunities  for problem gamblers does not yet reach many ears. One may speculate that a lack of resources dedicated to information  campaigns aimed at not only the addicted individual but also at the punter population may be partly responsible and  very inadequate. Enforcement issues distinguish several countries with self-exclusion programs. It is in vain to voluntarily  close the door on gambling venues when there is no legal enforcement plan to prevent players from playing despite their  self-imposed exclusion. The implementation of self-exclusion options is an interesting and promising development for  Africa, as indeed it is in other parts of the world.  

Read the full article in our digital magazine:

Back to top button
<p>You cannot copy content of this page</p>

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker