Last summer, Gambling Commission Chief Executive Andrew Rhodes issued an open letter addressing the misuse of statistics in the heated debate over gambling reform.
“While everyone is entitled to present their arguments, the misuse of statistics to support those arguments is wholly unacceptable,” Rhodes stated in his letter.
He urged all parties to ensure they use evidence and statistics correctly, accurately, and in proper context, applying necessary caveats.
However, some industry observers criticize the Gambling Commission’s own handling of evidence and statistics. This concern is expected to resurface with the upcoming publication of the first annual report of the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB). The GSGB will be the new official source of gambling statistics, covering issues such as problem gambling rates, potentially impacting the debate over gambling with significant consequences for punters and British racing.
Concerns over methodology and reliability
Doubts have been raised about the reliability of the figures in the GSGB report due to its methodology. One recent example highlighting these concerns is the delayed publication of a survey on attitudes toward affordability checks conducted by the Gambling Commission. Despite calls for its release, the results were only revealed after a freedom of information (FOI) request by the Racing Post.
In 2021, Julian Knight MP, then chair of the Culture, Media, and Sport Select Committee, found it “very strange” that the survey information was not made public. Despite this, the results remained undisclosed until another FOI request was filed.
The survey results, showing widespread opposition to affordability checks (over 77% of 12,000 respondents opposed the concept), were crucial for informing the government’s gambling white paper and subsequent consultations on financial risk checks.
Additionally, a 2019 survey by market research firm 2CV, commissioned by the Gambling Commission, also showed significant opposition to stringent gambling controls, with more than 70% of respondents rejecting such measures. This survey was not included in recent consultations, prompting criticism from the Arena Racing Company for its exclusion.
Selective use of evidence
The Gambling Commission’s selective publication of data has led to skepticism about its motives. Earlier this year, the commission released results from consumer research by polling firm Yonder, which found “high levels of overall support” for financial risk check proposals. This contrasted sharply with previous surveys.
Yonder expressed concerns that extensive media coverage might bias responses, leading them to develop tailored research materials and informational videos to ensure well-informed answers. This approach has been seen as potentially influencing the results in favor of the commission’s stance.
The GSGB is also set to provide estimates of various harms, including suicide attempts. An article in the New Statesman claimed gambling addiction causes 400 suicides annually, a statistic frequently cited but contested. Former Conservative MP Sir Philip Davies noted the figure has been discredited and not endorsed by the Gambling Commission.
Flawed estimates and junk science
The 400-suicide figure originates from a Public Health England (PHE) report, later succeeded by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID), estimating 117 to 496 gambling-related suicides annually. These estimates were based on a 2018 Swedish study of hospital patients with various health conditions, finding those with gambling disorders were 15 times more likely to commit suicide. However, the Swedish study concluded gambling disorder was not a significant risk factor when controlling for other conditions, a finding ignored by OHID.
Dan Waugh of Regulus Partners has been vocal about the flawed science behind these claims, criticizing the reliance on dubious assumptions and highlighting the lack of robust data supporting the high suicide estimates.
Questionable research and funding
The Gambling Commission has also faced criticism for how it allocates regulatory settlement funds, over £90 million, to various organizations, some of which produce questionable research or are openly anti-gambling. For instance, the commission funded a National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) report claiming problem gambling costs the public purse £1.4 billion annually. Waugh described this report as deeply flawed, with baseless assumptions and invented classifications.
The commission has also funded Gambling With Lives (GwL), an activist group criticized for misusing statistics, to develop educational materials for young people. This raises further questions about the commission’s objectivity and transparency.
Need for trustworthy data
The Gambling Commission aims to be the “trusted voice” on gambling. However, its selective data publication and questionable research funding have undermined this trust. Preliminary data from the GSGB suggest it will report a problem gambling rate significantly higher than previous NHS Health Surveys, despite warnings that this may substantially overstate the true level of gambling harm. The upcoming publication is likely to reignite the gambling debate, fueled by conclusions drawn from questionable statistics.
