Now that the new system to fund gambling charities is officially in place in the UK, will that prove a solid positive for the sector, or is a bit of convincing still needed to justify the decision?
For those unaware of how gambling harm funding works in the UK, it used to be that voluntary contributions from operators were given to GambleAware, which would commission the funds to charities across the whole of the UK.
However, with GambleAware closing down, this is now history thanks to recommendations made in the 2005 Gambling Act Review White Paper, which mandated a statutory Prevention, Treatment and Research levy to raise £100m annually.
With 50% of the funds allocated to treatment and commissioned by the NHS, and 20% going for research and handled by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), 30% is left for prevention, which is the money meant to go to gambling charities.
This stream, while previously commissioned by GambleAware, is now handled by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID), and most importantly – not all charities have been selected for funding.
In light of the charities recently receiving final confirmation about their funding, LinkedIn was submerged in a wave of posts by specialised gambling harm organisations, expressing their disappointment in the selection process, with some confirming that they’ll undertake drastic measures to try and withstand the lack of finance.
Nadine Ashworth, Chief Executive of gambling charm charity thrivin’ together, warned that many people are helping work in either the NHS, armed forces, police, or financial services, and that accessing support through the NHS itself is a no-go out of fear of losing their jobs.
GamLEARN, another charity that focuses on lived experiences, opted to maintain positivism when announcing it had been outshined in the funding round, but this would’ve certainly stung regardless.
EPIC Restart Foundation added: “We won’t pretend otherwise, it’s a blow, and we’re still taking it in.”
Gamban, a comprehensive gambling blocking tool that was free to use now requires a subscription to stay afloat as it also failed to pass the funding tender.
It’s not so mellow on the other side either, however, with charities who did actually manage to secure funding now attracting attention because of that, and pressed to justify themselves without owing anyone such explanations.
BetBlocker, for example, was contacted by The Guardian with a list of questions probing into the quality of the service the charity offers, which founder Duncan Garvie again took to LinkedIn to fully respond to.
Naturally, the air feels electrified right now, with plenty of critical views being slung from across every corner of the gambling sector.
There is also certainly a healthy dose of confusion, evidenced for example in this op-ed by Derek Webb, a Labour party donor and a gambling reform advocate.
Webb simultaneously criticised charities for previously receiving gambling donations while mourning some as victims of ‘unspecified allegations related to due diligence or ineligibility’.
The abundance of polarisation is bound to continue, at least until the dust settles down, but the most important question to answer would be whether the select few charities can withstand bearing the whole responsibility of caring for all of the UK’s problem gamblers on their shoulders.
Want to hear more stories like this? Check out the new SBC Media YouTube Channel, the new home of all things multimedia at SBC, where our team deep-dives into the biggest stories from across the sports betting, iGaming, affiliate and payments industries.