iGaming Daily

00:00
Hello everyone, welcome to iGaming Daily, sponsored by Optimove, the number one CRM marketing solution for the iGaming market. I'm Ted Orme Clay, I'm joined in the studio once again as always by the other trusty Ted at this company, Ted Memier. We hope everyone's had a good weekend, we hope everyone in England enjoyed the Euros final yesterday. So we are recapping something quite big, quite interesting that happened late Friday afternoon.

00:28
The Board of Trustees of GambleAware revealed that it has begun the process of winding down the charity with full closure expected by March 2026. This will see GambleAware play no more role in the UK's development of a new levy, the statutory levy on a gambling research education and treatment. It won't play any role in strategy around harm prevention and treatment after that as well.

00:55
and perhaps most significantly will no longer be the network for like fundraising, commissioning of prevention and treatment of gambling harm initiatives and programs. Today we're just gonna talk about whether we could have seen a different approach for political scrutiny, which may have led to a better outcome for Gambler Ware. We're gonna examine the mixed emotions surrounding Gambler Ware stepping away from these responsibilities. It's quite a meaty topic. We've got ourselves today to add quite a bonus, you know,

01:25
It's been very long running this, hasn't it? know, Gambler Ware was obviously at the centre, probably most vocal voice calling for the way treatment is funded in this country to be overhauled. Obviously, Gambler Ware, for many years, since its foundation in 2002, was like the main commissioner for fundraising, as we talked about, for deciding which projects, which initiatives, which other charities would get what funding.

01:52
that was paid for via a voluntary industry contribution. How much of a revenue was it? Was it 1 % of operator revenues were paid each year from like the biggest companies and then smaller ones made like a smaller mandatory contribution, didn't they? Yeah, it was on, primarily on BTC operators. It was 1 % and that was kind of led by, you know, the big five, so, uh, getting groups.

02:22
So, mean, at Volkner, William Hill back in the day, Bet365, Flutter, Antean with Lapbrokes and Coral, and Betfred. Yeah, they were the biggest five, right? But Degambler were often made a lot of comments, didn't it, about like discrepancies between the bigger ones and the smaller ones. Yes. mean, part of the, because it wasn't a statutory levy back then, it was mandatory and you'd see kind of, you know, a significant change.

02:51
or between kind of who contributed when which operates kind of most constant at giving or providing funds to Gamblerware. I think for me, it's just this really marks kind of a key kind of divergence now. Look, we've had kind of the gambling act and its recommendations come in and Gamblerware kind of quickening its responsibilities is for me kind of the first signal of

03:19
look, the impacts are going to start coming in now and this is really going to change how gambling operates in the UK. Yeah, mean, me, this came as, this did come as a bit of a surprise coming as soon as it did with the NHS not having fully taken on the levy yet, with it still being rolled out. there was, although maybe this is an indication that we should have seen this coming and that I covered something last week, I think it was last week.

03:47
of the Welsh government announcing some changes it was making with the NHS in Wales and taking on the RET levy and gambling harm treatment and so on. And in that it was mentioned that Gambler Ware would still be playing a role, that it would be getting some allocated funding, but it did say this would only be for a year. So maybe that was made with knowledge of this announcement.

04:16
with them having knowledge of this announcement before it was made public perhaps, obviously, I'm speculating there, but that was an interesting thing I noticed in that document where it said Gamblerware will be part of this funding in Wales, but only for, yeah, I think it was, I believe it mean, I'm with Eonlatch and I think he kind of took everyone by surprise. The kind of common narrative with Gamblerware was that, yes, it would enter kind of a period of transformation.

04:42
but that it would still play quite a significant role, maybe as kind of primary advisor to the NHS, to the, um, the, IHID and to kind of other kind of, um, NHS segments or agencies in how to engage with problem gambling. And actually kind of need that the thing about moving to a new system is that it kind of does need another kind of oversight on top of that.

05:11
What so many kind of third parties are saying is that they believe that kind of in that guidance and in this transition phase that we're under, it's that a lot of kind of communications being lost and a lot of third parties have had to kind of represent themselves to this huge enterprise in the NHS. Yeah, I mean, I guess the other thing kind of building on what you said there, I was surprised that it happened just because like you said, I was expecting Gambleware to

05:40
still continue, but for it to have to change its role a lot. Obviously the NHS is taking on the commissioning role, the fundraising commissioning role, and will be the one which collects the payments, I guess, from operators, the scheduled, the RET levy payments. I was expecting GambleAware to still find a way to fit into this ecosystem, maybe to have to change the way it operates a bit, to change what it focuses on. Perhaps become a bit more of a treatment charity and so on in itself rather than...

06:09
what it has been, which is more of a commissioner and more of like an advisory sort of thing. But yeah, but obviously, yeah, it's going, they're completely stepping back. But I think a lot of this decision kind of points to, I don't think that Gamlaware wanted to kind of accept its new role. And I don't think that was the job of the trustees. And to go kind of from chief commissioning charity for a, you know, subject matter such as gambling, problem gambling.

06:37
that requires so many stakeholders, where you do need kind of dedicated education training, research facilities to go from the organization that own that system or have control over that system to then just playing a bit part. I don't think the trustees kind of accepted that. And I think they would have gone back and said, look, it's better that we just quit. Gambleware has always been a high profile charity.

07:04
And the other thing here is that think that gamblerware kind of knows its political interplays. And if it didn't have that, I don't think that it wanted to kind of just go back to being kind of a small kind of referral charity within the NHS. And then you've noted what you think the stance from the trustees may have been about these changes that being made to UK problem gambling, prevention, treatment and funding and so on.

07:33
Just for our audience who might not have caught up on this story too much, because you just break down the decision and what was stated by the trustees, what they've made clear so far. Yeah, look, on late on Friday, they put out a statement by Andy Barsher, chair of trustees. And okay, they're not going to give that too much away, but they said that they believe that Gamberware had helped the NHS transition to the new statutory levy, its new design, its new framework, and that now

08:03
the kind of oversight of gambling homes, treatment and support would be viewed by NHS commissioners across England, Scotland and Wales that had kind of participated in like returning the system back to kind of a community level in that it had helped kind of transition or given the NHS kind of its new platform, along with the Office for Health Improvement decision.

08:31
their disparities to be to lead to be kind of the chief stewards of this new system. The decision was welcomed by DCMS who stated that Gambleware had left a positive legacy on UK on propaganda treatment support and as a UK charity itself and that its work would be continued through the system that is still to be seen.

08:58
I mean, it's interesting that we've had a response from DTMS, but we've not had one from the NHS. What do you think the NHS is just wanting to move on to take on its new role and just get cracking with this RET levy and funding and so on? I was surprised. And again, I can't comment for the NHS, but I think we have to find out what stopped them from giving this statement. I mean, look, it's a big project for them. It's one that they're...

09:27
The chief commissioners have been lobbying for to kind of take on full control. We've seen countless amounts of inquiries into these. And when Gamblerware shuts down, they weren't there to even provide a statement. That might be coming this week. So, you know, we don't know yet. I think that the statement itself, all the closure has caught a lot of stakeholders off guard.

09:52
And I think again that it puts the spotlight back on the NHS, especially, look, we haven't even heard an announcement from them on the beginning of a new network or a new structure that was implemented in April. If you talk to any kind of third party organization or third sector organization, they've all been kind of complaining about where is the communication. We're not even sure if the system has already launched or if that was just the PR.

10:21
It's been a transition, but you know, it has been quite a harmful period. Right. We're going to take a quick break and we'll be back to talk about this topic in a bit more depth. Welcome back to our gaming daily sponsored by OptiMove. I'm Ted. I'm here in the studio with Ted. We're talking more about the decision by Gamblerware to close up operations from March next year and what this could mean for the wider industry.

10:48
So just to bring us back onto topic here Ted, I know we've kind of already talked about this but was this an inevitable outcome? Do you think this was always going to happen ever since the white paper and the government made the decision to hand over the fundraising commissioning role to the NHS and put it in charge of this new statutory levy? Because obviously as we've said earlier, this basically means the NHS is taking on one of Gambler Ware's key functions.

11:17
Look, I mean, if you look at it on hindsight, yeah, you got 2020 vision and I've seen kind of a lot of comments come back saying like, yes, this was like the inevitable outcome of Gamblerware. But I don't quite believe that. mean, I think there was kind of many twists and turns in why they took this decision. I think also kind of the NHS kind of hostilities towards Gamblerware kind of never kind of faded out or were always kind of remembered by kind of key stakeholders in their department.

11:46
The NHS always wanted was a clear cut case of we're ending any kind of involvement or any kind of direct relationship with the UK gambling sector. They've got that. Again, I don't know how fresh this decision is by the Board of Trustees of Gamblerware. I also kind of looking back on it and having had the weekend to think about it, I think that a lot of these decisions were like this, that the board did not want to kind of go back.

12:16
being a small charity in like what it had built over a 20 year period to just become kind of an advisory for the NHS. It's not what the trustees are there for. Yeah. I mean, that's like we were talking earlier about. Can I just hold up that that is my opinion. Yeah, yeah. This is, yeah, we should have, we should probably start putting that as a stipulation on all our gaming daily podcasts, shouldn't we? These are the opinions of, these are the opinions of the two Ted's and not.

12:45
not anyone else. mean, obviously you've made some points there and we talked about this earlier about what about GambleAware and its need because of this levy to find a new role and whether or not they'd actually want to do that. As you say, after decades of growth, after taking on a lot of responsibilities within UK gaming, the charitable side of it, problem gambling treatment and so on, whether they would, yeah.

13:11
whether they would want to suddenly just become, right, we're stepping back now, we've got to go back to being a smaller charity and hand over all these responsibilities. But on top of that, there's also the factor as to whether the NHS would once gamble away involved as it launches this new system. mean, this has been something that maybe a point of contention isn't the right way to describe it, but there has at times been a war of words around the way you gamble.

13:38
gambling harm prevention and treatment in the UK is funded. Some figures in the NHS, particularly in sort of like the addiction treatment area, have often been a bit critical of GambleAware and the way the system functions, accusing it of being a bit too heavily dependent on the industry because of the voluntary donations and so on. Do think this is something that may have factored into play with this decision and kind of how NHS and GambleAware might

14:08
might move forward. I think you're right. And I think I'm looking back at this. don't think that the NHS would have wanted GamlaWare to have an involvement beyond the transition to a new system. The other thing here is that actually it would have really gone drowned out because you got to remember GamlaWare was the chief commissioner. It was the chief kind of funding arm, right? But

14:32
It controlled a network of a hundred and so stakeholders each providing kind of specified roles within problem gambling, know, research, education, treatment, the staff training. What we kind of seen is that where do you kind of pull back, you know, gambler ware? Where does it fit in? It's not going to run the national problem gambling helpline. That's GAM care. It's already given out its roles to kind of specific charities, right? That are very good at what they do. Gambler ware essentially was a commissioner.

15:02
It wasn't a kind of a direct organization at providing support. It was kind of much more an auditor, a kind of financial organization for the network itself. And I think that role is now the NHS, is now the NHS is to behold. And I think it's going to be very interesting to see what, you know, how this plays out going forward. Cause this is something that we've discussed on podcasts before and kind of the concern I've got.

15:29
about the NHS taking on this responsibility is that the NHS is obviously an institution that's got a lot of structural issues that need addressing. Maybe that's not the right term. It's an institution that's been feeling a lot of pressure over the past 10, 15 years and so on. Lots of government cuts in the aftermath of the financial crash and so on and during the age of austerity. A huge amount of pressure piled on it there.

15:57
Lots of structural changes made by governments and policymakers who, let's be honest at times, probably didn't know what they were doing with it and didn't really understand the intricacies of running a healthcare service, of managing one. People in the department of health and so on who wouldn't have had experience with that. You then had the COVID-19 pandemic which obviously put insane amount of pressure on it. We were seeing in the news constantly stories about...

16:22
the NHS being on its knees because of the pandemic, because of the amount of patients that were coming through, because of all the pressures that were put on top of that. And now it's got this new role that it doesn't have as much experience of doing as a lot of these charities do. It seems like it could, you know, I'm sure there's plenty of preparation, plenty of planning involved. It seems to me like it's something that if everything isn't planned out,

16:52
perfectly and everything doesn't align, it could go wrong. Am I, do you think I'm being a bit too cynical with that opinion? I'm maybe just too no, no, no, at all. mean, look, this isn't just the case of, look, the restructure of the levy and kind of finding a kind of a new design for, you know, Probler Gamma and Treatment Spool in the UK was part of the Gambling Act review. And I think I'm going to kind of reiterate to what I said at the start of the podcast.

17:21
is that this is now, you're now kind of beginning to see kind of the aftermath, right? And one of the things, one of the consequences is that GamlaWare will no longer be part of the gambling landscape of the UK. We're now transferring onto a new structural system for treating problem gambling in which, you know, GamlaWare did play a part in how that network was built.

17:48
So I think that the NHS kind of does recognize that it has been able to kind of spread its support throughout the kind of local communities, which was always the case. When the strategy started about 10, 12 years ago, it's been able to build upon. I think what the NHS wants is that I think it wants kind of full control of the other services, that being kind of research, education, treatment, the training of staff and how

18:19
And I think this is ultimately how problem gambling is treated as a healthcare issue across UK society. And that's, think, where he kind of really primarily wants to of stamp its authority on that. Just to say, look, we're the National Health Service and we have got full control on that. This isn't being done by the industry or an association tied to it.

18:44
This is our mandate. That's something I do understand as well, because obviously the NHS will be looking at this and going, well, we're the NHS, we are the National Health Service. This is something we should have oversight on, something we should have more of a say in, more control over. And roll that into their duties and their responsibilities as the UK's public health service, as the institution responsible for taking care of us. You can understand definitely where

19:13
where the health service would be coming from with that. You mentioned, obviously, I think this is a good point for us to leave it on. You mentioned the whole topic of gambling as a public health issue. This is something that a lot of politicians, some MPs are starting to get a lot more vocal about. We talked about this on a podcast with our colleague Martin not long ago about the...

19:35
The all party parliamentary group on gambling reform are now really banging the drum for gambling to be framed as a public health issue, not a business one. This is a call we've seen before. It's one that's getting re-raised. Do you think the NHS taking on this responsibility and becoming the main problem gambling treatment commissioner and organisation in the UK, do you think that will kind of hammer this point home a bit more of gambling as a public health issue? Do you think that will frame it even more on the political agenda? I think it's really down to them.

20:06
Um, there, are so many kind of missing pieces to where we are now with the new structure. Uh, the NHS has yet to detail. mean, who's gonna, gonna have, who is the person in charge of this new structure? Who's taking care of kind of the third party. which, um, which organization has been put there in terms of taking, you know, taking control with the third part of third party systems that are already in place. Again, I think the fear for the industry is that.

20:36
problem gambling will get even more kind of politicized and that will either kind of impede kind of access to treatment, right? Or, kind of make it harder for organizations that do, you know, that do have very kind of specific roles and it's a very kind of broad subject matter to kind of get involved with how treatments are being delivered. Yeah. I think that's,

21:02
That's a solid point for us to leave it on. Obviously a lot to consider, a lot to follow as this story progresses. I'm sure we'll get more announcements from the NHS and the OHID and so on as this levy is rolled out. Ted, thank you very much for joining me in the studio today to talk about this. You can check out Ted's coverage of this news on the Best Precision News website. Thanks to everyone for tuning in. Goodbye.