Gambling Survey for Great Britain: UKGC responds to statistics regulator concerns
The battle over how Britain counts problem gambling is far from settled. At the centre is the Gambling Commission’s new Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB), which has replaced NHS-led health surveys as the primary source of data. Its headline figure, suggesting that 2.5 percent of adults score eight or more on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI), the threshold commonly used to define problem gambling, has collided with the previously accepted estimate of 0.4 percent. Two numbers now frame the debate, rival baselines that risk perception hardening long before the evidence does.
The Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR), Britain’s statistical watchdog, has urged caution. Billed as an improvement, the GSGB has left regulators, charities, and operators disputing not only the figures but the framing. In February 2024, Professor Patrick Sturgis of the London School of Economics released his independent review, characterising the GSGB developments as “exemplary in all respects” while providing seven recommendations to address unresolved issues.
New data source, familiar controversy
When the Gambling Survey for Great Britain arrived in 2024, it redirected gambling data out of the NHS health surveys and into its own study. It uses the PGSI to break down risk and harm. On paper, the design looks stronger: larger samples, steady collection, and a lens fixed only on gambling.
The Commission has stressed repeatedly that the new estimate is not directly comparable, but campaigners and politicians seized on the number as evidence of a worsening gambling crisis.
Gambling Survey for Great Britain faces regulator scrutiny
The OSR’s intervention sharpened the debate. In its assessment earlier this year, it warned that while the GSGB is a valuable new resource, “significantly more work is needed to better support the appropriate use of these statistics.” In plain terms, the figures were too easy to misinterpret. This added to earlier concerns over the Commission’s wider data strategy, which has already come under scrutiny.
The Commission promised to be clearer about the limits of its data. It said it will explain biases, add caveats to estimates, and open a new feedback channel for stakeholders. Andrew Rhodes, Chief Executive of the Gambling Commission, said that the regulator will push back against inaccurate uses of its data.
Roadblocks standing in the way of clarity
Despite these assurances, three obstacles remain.
- Narrative capture. Reform campaigners and All-Party Parliamentary Groups have relied on the 2.5 per cent figure to advocate for stricter advertising restrictions and even a new Gambling Act. Meanwhile, trade bodies such as the Betting and Gaming Council continue to reference the older 0.4 percent figure, portraying gambling harm as stable. The result is two competing “truths.”
- Competing baselines. Policymakers, media outlets, and charities are now citing different prevalence rates depending on which suits their position. This risks undermining confidence in all official statistics, not just those on gambling.
- Eroding credibility. Critics, including Dan Waugh of Regulus Partners, say the Commission’s reply to the OSR amounted to “cherry picking” instead of open engagement. The regulator said its response was constructive, but reputational questions remain, not least after its own report found no resurgence in VIP schemes. For operators and charities trying to plan interventions, uncertainty about which figure to trust only complicates decision-making.
Sturgis review sets the benchmark
Professor Patrick Sturgis at the London School of Economics led the independent review of the GSGB methodology. His assessment described the survey as exemplary but urged greater caution in how estimates are presented and interpreted. The outcome could be pivotal. A strong endorsement may help settle nerves, while a critical review could further undermine confidence. Either way, it is likely to shape how government departments, campaign groups, and the industry cite gambling harm statistics in the months ahead.
In parallel, the Commission has launched a new email channel to gather feedback and pledged to engage more closely with data users. Whether this will be enough to restore trust remains to be seen.
Regulation, resources, and public trust are all on the line
For operators, the implications are notable. If policymakers adopt the higher GSGB estimates, they could justify tighter rules on advertising, sponsorship, and customer engagement. If the lower NHS baseline continues to hold sway, industry arguments that harm rates are stable will retain force.
Charities and treatment providers face their own challenges. When the numbers clash, funders reshape proposals, providers reorder interventions, and charities struggle to keep their messaging consistent. At the heart of this is the question of who controls gambling harm data in Britain, and whether that control should sit with regulators, health bodies, or independent researchers. For anyone helping the vulnerable, confusing stats aren’t just numbers. They decide which doors stay open and which don’t.
For regulators, the longer the dispute persists, the greater the risk that public trust erodes. Statistics are supposed to provide clarity, not fuel division.
The Gambling Survey for Great Britain was supposed to be a fresh start. Instead, it has become the argument itself. The Commission’s July 2025 response to the Sturgis review now tests whether it can build consensus or cement Britain’s split between a story of stability and a tale of crisis.
When perception outweighs evidence, regulation shifts course, and the industry feels the full weight of those decisions.
With regulations still in limbo, a White Paper circling to land, and tax hikes debated by lobbyists across a Westminster bullseye, is the real loaded gun the Treasury’s indecision, not the survey’s data?
Correction 21 August 2025: When first published, this piece carried the headline “Gambling Survey for Great Britain questioned ahead of Sturgis review.” We’ve since updated it to “Gambling Survey for Great Britain: UKGC responds to Sturgis review,” after the Commission put out its response on 24 July 2025. The text now clarifies that Professor Patrick Sturgis published his review in February 2024, rather than stating it was “due any day,” as originally written.
