How to be smarter about helping problem gamblers

Entain plc chairman Barry Gibson writes in reply to Lee Mottershead's special report this week into how the problem gambling sector is funded and concerns over how money is being spent

I was pleased to read the Racing Post’s recent article which raised some key concerns about the ways in which money is being spent to tackle problem gambling.

It chimed with a number of my own opinions on the subject, which have been built up over many years of working in this industry.

I want to make it abundantly clear that I am a huge advocate of the importance of funding to treat those who are most in need of it. I am proud that Entain was the first operator to commit to spending one per cent of our UK gross gambling revenue on Research, Education and Treatment (RET) donations, and was equally delighted when others followed suit. This collective action resulted in donations reaching around £100 million in the last financial year, which should make a meaningful and lasting impact on an issue that – whilst very real – only impacts 0.3 per cent of gamblers in the UK, according to the Gambling Commission.

I also want to be equally emphatic in stating that neither I nor anyone else at Entain have any desire to influence how or where the money is spent. It would be wildly inappropriate for us to do so, and we would be conflicted from the start. 

The article eloquently laid bare the scale of the problem – or the problem within a problem. Serious questions undoubtedly need to be asked about how exactly the funding is allocated, and why so little is being done to establish whether grants are being spent on their intended purpose. 

But what’s the solution? 

Well, in any business I’ve ever worked in, if a sum of money like £100m were allocated to a project there would be robust procedures in place to make sure it was being spent as effectively as possible. Objectives and targets would be agreed upfront, regular and transparent audits would be undertaken, and those in charge would be expected to take full accountability.

In my view, the government needs to adopt these same principles if it wants to prevent the funding being wasted on initiatives that may be well intentioned but are too often misdirected, poorly researched and hindered by red tape. 

Specifically, I would like to see a genuinely independent advisory body of experts within the DCMS who are charged with making the decisions, regularly communicating them and, most importantly, being held accountable through a rigorous external auditing process. 

It should be made up of experienced individuals from the charity commissioning world, as well as people with a deep understanding both of the problem itself and of the most effective solutions for it. Industry types like me shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near it, in the same way that those from the anti-gambling lobby shouldn’t either. Objective, unemotional, empirical, data-led thinking is key. 

The industry is often accused of wanting to mark its own homework or trying to exert undue pressure on policy makers and regulators. But the reality is far simpler: treating the issue of problem gambling as effectively as possible is the best outcome for all concerned – whether it’s the organisations involved in RET, the government, the Gambling Commission, the industry, or, most importantly of all, the thankfully small minority that this support is designed to help.

Read these next:

'This space is money, money, money, smokescreens and mirrors' - the problem with the problem gambling sector  

Affordability checks explained and how to respond to the Gambling Commission consultation  

'I don't think they truly understand a lot of betting' - concerns raised over Gambling Commission consultation 

Sign up to receive On The Nose, our essential daily newsletter, from the Racing Post. Your unmissable morning feed, direct to your email inbox every morning.