It would be difficult to identify a more relevant event, among those that occurred in 2023, than the release of the White Paper in the United Kingdom and the consultations that has followed.
This is of course my personal opinion and therefore of someone living in England, but looking at the gaming world globally, impacts outside the United Kingdom seem more than possible. While the news on the various restrictions, such as financial risks and deposit limits, are (as usual) at the center of international discussions - and in fact they have also been present in my articles so far - this time I would like to focus on a a topic that seems limited to few organizations, but which could have long-term unintended consequences.
This is the so-called Third Sector, i.e. the non-profit organizations that offer prevention services and above all recovery therapies for the most vulnerable players. This sector is quite well developed in the United Kingdom, with organizations offering a variety of services, such as helplines, education of minors about the risks of gaming, research, public and staff education, therapy and support groups and, for the most critical cases, even residential recovery centres.
These organizations are also generally well integrated into the gaming sector, with which they carry out collaborative and research projects, taking advantage of direct access to analyze consumer behaviour, especially those most at risk, in response to various gambling products, marketing campaigns and control and responsible gaming tools. I observe this cooperation every year during Ice, during various meetings in the Consumer protection zone, which also hosts the third sector.
Funding for these social activities has so far been voluntary, with various gaming companies invited to make donations directly to organizations of their choice. However, the White Paper proposes a new way of financing, which would oblige all licensees to pay an annual percentage, a levy, of 1 percent of the Ggr (or less, which depends on the type of organisation), paid into a fund managed from above, through the National Health Service (Nhs) as one of its main administrators. In general, it is a solution welcomed by the third sector, which thus obtains financing security allowing it to no longer have to organize fundraising to ensure its survival and to concentrate on its main mission and long-term planning.
It therefore seems like an ideal solution, and it is, as far as the security of the financing is concerned. But it could be a double-edged sword, distancing the third sector from the gaming one. And it would be a separation caused not only by the fact of no longer having to raise funds, but also encouraged by the National Health Service, which will decide the distribution of funds. NHS has been traditionally suspicious of the sector's intentions and therefore critical of the integrity of the results of any form of cooperation. The issue of integrity within gambling research is often raised, questioning any participation, especially that including funding from the sector itself. The same doubts appear within third sector institutions, which deal more with the negative effects of gambling, and which could, instinctively, be minimized or denied by the commercial sector. The impartiality of the cooperation cannot be trusted, opponents say. Proponents instead argue that the integrity of any research initiative can be increased with direct access to industry resources, especially to consumers and data on their attitudes.
The British market has so far seen, perhaps unlike other European markets, quite close cooperation between the commercial gambling sector and the third sector. A cooperation often mentioned, in terms of responsible gaming, as critical to making progress aimed at the well-being of the consumer. We are going to judge what the impact of this new type of financing could be on this cooperation and on the future of consumer care and therefore also on the sustainability of the entire sector. The introduction of a levy", proposed by the reform, will serve as a model for other markets given that, with the exception of Australia, there are no others with a similar approach.