Ladbrokes and Coral are the big winners from CMA ruling on betting shops but pity the poor punter

Competition watchdogs have allowed a dominant player to take a grip on the betting shop sector. Punters and smaller bookies will lose out as a result

Ladbrokes Coral could dominate betting shops as Frankel dominated the track (AFP/Getty Images)

Ladbrokes has just cleared the equivalent of the infamous Chair on Aintree’s Grand National course, and with a clean pair of heels too.

Analysts had predicted it might have to sell as many as 1,000 shops to one or more “suitably qualified” buyers to get its merger with Coral past the Competition & Markets Authority.

The final number will be no more than 400 in those areas where the CMA has identified the merger “may be expected to result in a substantial lessening of competition”.

That represents a significant win for the two bookies.

Even if this ruling deals with most of the local issues (and I have my doubts) there will still - as recognised by the CMA - be a significant reduction in competition on a national. level.

The merger will remove one of the four biggest players from the betting shop sector. It will create a dominant player with 3,600 shops even after the 400 have been sold.

To put that in context, William Hill will be in second place with 2,371 shops with Betfred several lengths back in third with 1,400 outlets. After that there is a huge drop off to Paddy Power, labouring back in fourth with only 300.

The CMA’s summary admits that the merger could lead to a worsening of the offer made to customers. No kidding.

Ladbrokes Coral could become the betting shop equivalent of unbeatable super horse Frankel.

Set aside for a moment the issue of the ever controversial, and repellant, fixed odds betting terminals, from which profits and payouts are strictly regulated. Betting shops compete in any number of ways. They might offer enhanced odds, they might dole out bonuses, they might just put out plates of sandwiches on big race days to tempt punters who might have visited rival shops.

The incentive to do that will inevitably be less with one less rival out of the way, and not just on the part of Ladbrokes Coral.

It’s true that bookies compete hard in the online world (good news for those of us that use that channel) which is where the growth is and where much of their investment goes.

All the more reason to foster competition in the betting shop sector, which could ultimately just became a stodgy cash cow used to prop up more exciting parts of the business.

Betting shop punters tend to be older. They’re often poorer. And, well, it’s gambling innit. You want to bet, you have to be prepared to shoulder your losses. Could that, in any way, have influenced the CMA’s decision. I really hope not.

Just because they use a gambling product in an unfashionable part of the market doesn’t mean betting shop punters don’t deserve the same sort of protection that consumers in any other sector have a right to expect. They might need it more.

The CMA’s ruling denies them that protection. Most punters know that their bookies usually win in the end. But that’s not true in this case because while one bookie wins handsomely, this ruling is just as bad for the smaller, independent operators, as it is for their customers. They’re already struggling under the burden of higher costs, tax and regulation. In horse racing terms they are handicappers and the CMA has left them trying to compete at equal weights against the aforementioned Frankel. There can be only won winner in such a contest.