End of an era: life after GambleAware

As the UK’s most prominent gambling-related harm charity, GambleAware is part of the fabric of the industry. Funded by voluntary donations from gambling companies, GambleAware has had various names since it was founded in 2002, becoming GambleAware in 2018. Whether you remember the ‘Bet Regret’ campaign or have seen the message ‘Be GambleAware.org’ at the end of a TV advert, the independent charity is synonymous with gambling-related harm prevention and treatment.  

Then came the statutory levy, introduced in April 2025 and to be paid by 1 October each year, which has already had major ramifications for the research, education and treatment (RET) sector of the industry. Rather than UK licensees making voluntary donations (some pledge as little as £1 a year), they instead have to part with between 0.1% and 1.1% of their gross gambling yield (GGY). The top rate of 1.1% applies to remote gambling operators and software suppliers. The UK government expects the levy to raise £100m annually. 

The government’s response to the consultation on the structure, distribution and governance of the levy, which was published last November, outlined that 50% of levy funding would go to NHS England and equivalent bodies to fund treatment of gambling harm. Another 30% is to be ringfenced for preventative measures to tackle gambling-related harm, which will be administered by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID), while the remaining 20% is to be given to UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and the Gambling Commission (GC) to spend on research projects. These percentages didn’t leave much room for many organisations concentrated on RET. 

In July, GambleAware announced a managed closure culminating in the winding up of all operations by March 2026, while giving assurances it would see through any “commissioning agreements” until then. The charity has since appointed Anna Hargrave as transition CEO to help oversee the process, replacing current chief Zoë Osmond. With enormous change on the horizon when it comes to tackling gambling-related harm, and GambleAware soon to be out of the picture, treatment services in the UK are set to enter uncharted territory.  

Lasting legacy

To assess how GambleAware might be replaced, one should first look at the size of the void it will leave behind. The numbers are laid bare in the charity’s latest annual report from 2024. For the 2023-24 financial year, up until 31 March 2024, GambleAware spent £52.5m on charitable activities, with £35.1m going towards gambling-related harm treatment, £15.3m on education and £1.8m for research. The charity received £85.7m in voluntary donations, with a further £845,000 coming from investments. There was also £33.5m in “regulatory settlement funding” allocated by the GC. 

“For most of their history, the job was very simple,” explains Dan Waugh, partner at independent research firm Regulus Partners. “It was pulling funds from the gambling industry in accordance with the law and the licence conditions, and then distributing those funds to treatment providers and other organisations. It was a very simple role – bring the money in and send it on its way to people who can actually do the work. They did that job pretty competently. There may have been some questions about research strategy, but I think they performed a necessary role.”

The research produced by Gamble-Aware over the years has been varied and helped to stimulate conversation and mainstream media attention. For example, studies commissioned on loot boxes in video games – such as 2021’s Lifting the Lid on Loot Boxes report – led to questions as to whether this aspect of gaming is suitable for children. Meanwhile, the Patterns of Play research published in 2022 analysed more than 139,000 gambling accounts across the UK and helped to highlight the disproportionate impact of gambling harm on deprived communities. Finally, the formation of its Lived Experience Council in 2022 gave people affected by gambling-related harm a voice to help shape treatment programmes for those who may need them in the future.

Former prevention director Jane Rigbye wrote on LinkedIn in July that GambleAware had achieved its goals, and she believed the core mission was “ultimately, to work ourselves out of a job”. 

Pedro Romero, chief of safer gambling partnerships at BetBlocker, a registered charity that allows people to block gambling websites, has had various dealings with GambleAware in roles with evoke brands 888 and William Hill. He hopes to see GambleAware’s knowledge repurposed following its closure. “As someone working in this sector, it takes a very long time for people to gain valuable experience,” he says. 

“Hopefully the OHID can provide jobs for those leaving GambleAware, or maybe operators can take them on board. There’s a lot of people there with very valuable knowledge and experience, and it would be a good thing to help them. Mainly because it’s helpful for the whole gambling ecosystem.”

Romero adds that BetBlocker has been less reliant on GambleAware than other charities, yet its absence will be a “big change in the landscape”. Moreover, he was surprised to discover its closure will come so soon. “Over the years, they were getting funding from operators and [GC] regulatory settlements, so I thought they would have a good pot of funding which could keep them going for five or so years. It seems a bit early [to close] as they still have decent funding which can help a lot of other organisations.”

Levy looming

The impact of GambleAware’s arguably largest contribution – campaigning for the introduction of the statutory levy – remains to be seen. In its statement announcing it was working to a managed shutdown, chair Andy Boucher said the charity was “proud of our contribution to its implementation” and that it will happily “welcome this new era in which gambling harms are recognised alongside other public health issues and are funded through a statutory levy”. Such persistence has ultimately played a part in the shutdown, when staying the course with the status quo was an equally viable option.

Operators thus far seem to be playing their cards close to their chest with regard to their feelings on the levy, perhaps waiting to see how things pan out in the first year of its introduction. And, of course, no operator would dare to publicly complain about now having to make statutory payments. 

“It is what it is,” says John O’Reilly, CEO of Rank Group, the parent company of the Grosvenor and Mecca brands. “We’ve moved from the voluntary position to the statutory position today. The cost is £2.8m per annum to the digital business in terms of profit impact. We’ve known about it for a long time. It’s been in our forecast forever and a day now.”

Romero suggests the manner with which the levy was introduced took everyone, including GambleAware, by surprise. “I don’t think the levy was introduced as expected. Originally, a lot of organisations thought there would be a levy which would go to GambleAware, that would then decide which organisations would be funded.” 

Instead, the role of levy commissioner went to NHS England, the OHID and UKRI/GC, although Waugh believes “the circumstances around that are quite murky”. Prior to the appointment of the levy commissioners, the Good Law Project submitted a complaint to the Charity Commission alleging malfeasance against GambleAware in 2024. 

Although the case was dismissed, one can speculate as to whether any ensuing reputational damage to GambleAware ended the charity’s chances of landing the commissioner role. 

“We can’t be too critical of their role as commissioner because we haven’t seen them do it yet,” Waugh says. “But the OHID is an organisation which, in its own words, sees gambling as the new tobacco. They see public harm and gambling as indivisible, so what they want to do with their money is to stop people from gambling. That in itself is a questionable use of levy funding. The government taking money from the industry to fund prohibitionists is nothing short of dysfunctional.”

Waugh also points out uncertainties surrounding the levy. First, it’s unclear how much money the levy will end up pulling in. Although the government initially estimated £100m per year, that’s far from a guarantee. When the levy was unveiled in late 2024, NHS England was selected as one of the bodies to step into the new system, yet it was announced in March 2025 that NHS England would be abolished. Waugh suggests that with a chunk of the government’s £100m target headed for the OHID, it has an impact on the funding aimed at gambling harm treatment services. 

He continues: “I’ve been told that GambleAware’s commissioning programmes are pretty good and their processes are robust. They’re pretty good at the nuts and bolts of what they do, so if that’s true, why would you want to take that role away from them? There’s definitely an inherent risk in just dismantling a system without any real clarity about what’s going to replace it.”

Give people choices 

With the new commissioners at the helm, the focus will be on how the quality of treatment improves – if at all. Romero favours a more methodical approach to replacing treatment services rather than sweeping changes. 

“With big changes, you need to act with caution,” he notes. “You have to maintain the existing services and support until you can provide something better. It’s important for people to have choice. Some may improve their conditions with NHS treatment, [yet] others may prefer to go to a charity and talk with a support group.”

When looking at how the new commissioners will interact with the remaining charities, Romero wants to see an open dialogue with the new commissioning body. “It’s important to have good communication,” he stresses. 

“We’ll continue to offer support in the UK regardless of what happens, but any help from the OHID will be more than welcome. At the end of the day, we want to help people. We’re agnostic in terms of gambling – we’re not for or against. We didn’t pick a side on the levy; we’re just here to help people and not get involved in politics.”

In a July LinkedIn post, gambling harm education service DealMeOut, which isn’t funded by GambleAware, said it was “extremely concerned” about the commissioning of treatment services in the future. Romero admits he’s unsure if the levy is a positive step, but remains hopeful the OHID and the like “see the value of organisations in the sector”. 

Waugh, however, is more pessimistic: “The industry should be terrified about the direction things are going in general, but the potential for the levy fund leading to the emasculation or destruction of licensed gambling in Britain is a possibility. [I think] the government thought it would be quite easy, but I suspect they’re going to regret this. It’s already turning into a mess, and I think there will be unintended negative consequences.” 

He goes on to suggest the scale of the levy’s importance may have been underestimated: “In its current form, the levy is good news for people who don’t like gambling and would like to see it banned. The industry didn’t fight too hard against it because when you’re facing things like affordability checks, changing the name of the person you’re writing the cheque to doesn’t seem like a big deal. In reality, the levy is potentially the most significant change to come out of the Gambling Act [2005] review.” 

As the first formal review of the levy is expected in 2030, the prevailing feeling is one of uncertainty rather than confidence for the RET sector. The onus is on the OHID, UKRI and whoever replaces NHS England to put everyone at ease as they step into the vacuum created by GambleAware’s looming departure. 

GambleAware declined the opportunity to speak to EGR for this article.