jili tutorial

Funding: Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don’t — A Comprehensive Look at Gambling Addiction Research and Treatment Funding

By jili tutorial · September 25, 2026

Funding: Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don’t — A Comprehensive Look at Gambling Addiction Research and Treatment Funding

Introduction: The Paradox That Refuses to Die

Funding for gambling addiction research and treatment should be one of the least controversial topics in the industry. On the surface, it seems straightforward: people are harmed by gambling, and we need money to understand, treat, and prevent that harm. Who could possibly object to that?

Yet the reality is anything but simple. The gambling industry finds itself caught in a perpetual catch-22 when it comes to funding addiction services. Acknowledge a role in the problem and critics accuse you of trying to buy absolution. Donate money to research and you’re accused of trying to influence the findings. Stay silent and you’re accused of not caring. It truly is a case of being damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

The confusion isn’t only external, either. Even within the industry and among its critics, the debate is riddled with inconsistency. It’s 2026, and we still haven’t resolved this fundamental conflict. This comprehensive guide explores the many dimensions of this thorny issue, examining the arguments on all sides and attempting to find a workable path forward.

The Great Paradox: Critics Who Can’t Make Up Their Minds

Real-World Example: The Twitter Flip-Flop

A perfect illustration of the confusion surrounding gambling industry funding comes from social media. Consider this true anecdote: an outspoken critic of the gambling industry posted on Twitter that the industry “should be paying toward research and treatment for gambling addiction.” Seemingly reasonable, right?

One week later, the same critic posted that the industry “should not be allowed anywhere near funding for treatment or research.”

The contradiction is glaring. How can one person hold both positions simultaneously? This is not a topic that should be governed by emotional reactions. It requires hard logic, consistent logic, any logic. But all too often, the discourse around gambling funding is driven by raw sentiment rather than rational analysis.

Understanding the Roots of the Contradiction

The flip-flopping may seem baffling, but it often stems from a deeper distrust of the gambling industry’s motives. Critics operate from a position of suspicion: if the industry is funding research or treatment, they reason, it must be trying to buy something. A favourable outcome. Influence over researchers. A public relations victory.

This mistrust is understandable, given the history of other industries. The tobacco industry, for example, famously funded research that purported to question the link between smoking and lung cancer. Big Oil has funded climate change sceptics. It’s natural to wonder: is gambling funding anything like that?

But there’s a crucial distinction. Tobacco and oil companies were trying to deny the very existence of the problems their products were causing. The gambling industry, by and large, acknowledges that problem gambling exists and that the industry has some responsibility to address it. The question is about the degree and nature of that responsibility—not whether it exists.

Reasons Why the Industry Must Be Involved in Research and Treatment

The Data Question: Why the Industry Holds the Keys

Leaving aside the moral arguments for a moment, there is a purely practical reason the gambling industry is essential to research and treatment: the data. The operators hold massive amounts of information about player behaviour that independent researchers simply cannot access anywhere else.

Who bets how much? When do players start showing signs of problem gambling? Which games are more associated with harmful play? What marketing practices seem to attract high-risk players? The industry knows all of this. No academic researcher, no treatment organisation, and no government agency has the same depth of data that a gambling operator has at its fingertips.

Imagine what an addiction researcher could do with detailed, anonymised data spanning millions of players over several years. It could revolutionise our understanding of how gambling addiction develops, what warning signs precede it, and which interventions work best. The potential for good is enormous.

The Anonymised Data Solution

This is where the industry could make its single most valuable contribution without ever touching a cheque book: simply supply anonymised data to independent researchers, without caveats or conditions, and let them do their work.

There is precedent for this working well. Some operators do share data with researchers, and the results have been valuable. But it’s nowhere near as prevalent as it could or should be. Many operators treat their player data as a proprietary asset to be protected at all costs.

The argument is straightforward: quality data is the most important ingredient of research. Sharing it with the right people could help the entire industry move the conversation forward. How could that ever be a bad thing?

Of course, there are sensitivities. Player privacy must be protected. Commercial confidentiality is a legitimate concern. But these are obstacles, not impassable barriers. They can be navigated with proper protocols, independent oversight, and good governance.

Acknowledging Causation: An Uncomfortable Reality

There’s an uncomfortable truth that the gambling industry must confront: in many cases, the industry’s own products and practices may have contributed to a player’s problems. Consider two stark examples:

  1. Ignoring self-exclusion requests: Players who have voluntarily excluded themselves from gambling find their exclusion requests ignored by some operators.

  2. Marketing to self-excluded players: Some operators have targeted marketing directly at players who have self-excluded. This is a breach of trust, a breach of process, and in many jurisdictions, a breach of law.

If the industry has contributed to a player’s problems through its own negligence or ethical failures, then it stands to reason that the industry should be part of the solution. Not just through funding, but through accountability.

This is not about assigning blanket blame. But it is about being honest: when your product has harmed someone, you have an obligation to help them. And you have an obligation to help researchers understand how that harm occurred so it can be prevented in future.

The State of Gambling Addiction Funding Today

Persistent Underfunding

The unfortunate reality is that gambling addiction research and treatment are significantly underfunded in most jurisdictions. While drug and alcohol addiction services receive substantial government and charitable funding, gambling addiction is often treated as something of an orphan issue.

This is particularly problematic because gambling addiction frequently coexists with other addictions and mental health conditions. It’s not unusual for a person struggling with gambling addiction to also be dealing with substance abuse or depression. This overlap is an argument for more funds toward gambling addiction services, not fewer.

The Problem of Being “Lumped In”

One persistent problem is that gambling addiction is sometimes lumped in with other addiction treatments despite having relatively little commonality with, say, drug abuse. The psychological mechanisms differ. The social contexts differ. The treatment approaches that work for substance abuse don’t necessarily translate to gambling addiction, and vice versa.

Although drug abuse can be a significant contributor to gambling addiction (and the reverse is also true), the two conditions require different treatment models. It’s like treating diabetes and heart disease with the same approach because they share some risk factors. It doesn’t make sense.

The Industry’s Obligation: A Call for Universal Contribution

A Position Statement

Here’s a clear, direct position: the gambling industry should, in every country with a legal market, pay toward treatment and research. In that order—treatment first, research second.

Why this order? Because treatment helps people who are suffering right now. Research helps people who will suffer in the future. Both are essential, but the urgency is not equal.

And here’s the key nuance: the industry doesn’t necessarily have to fund research directly. It could simply provide the anonymised data that researchers need, and let trained professionals handle the analysis and conclusions. The industry would be a vital contributor without exerting any influence over the findings.

Why should the industry do this? Because it’s the right thing to do. Because the industry’s products have contributed to harm. Because the industry has the resources to make a difference. Because, if gambling is legal, operators have a moral obligation to mitigate its consequences.

A Few Caveats

Of course, funding is not straightforward. Not all money is created equal. The gambling industry has many bodies doing lots of ostensibly important work, and some of it may be more effective than other parts. There is a risk that industry funding could be seen as an attempt to capture or neutralise the very organisations that are meant to hold the industry accountable.

That’s why transparency and independence matter enormously. When the industry funds treatment and research, it must be done in a way that clearly protects the independence of the researchers and clinicians involved. The industry should never, ever try to direct the outcomes of the research it funds. If it does, it will damage the entire structure of trust that holds this system together.

A Case Study in Trust Erosion: The National Council on Problem Gambling and Kalshi

The NCPG’s Role

The National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) in the United States is one of the most prominent problem gambling organisations in the country. It’s a non-profit organisation working to advance education on gambling and associated harms. Its work has never been more important than now.

The legalisation of sports betting in the US post-PASPA (the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act) created a chaotic patchwork of state regulations. Without a federal framework for guidance or a baseline, each state had the opportunity to get it wrong in its own special way. The NCPG stepped into this vacuum.

The US needs national organisations to support those states that are struggling to keep pace with the impact of addiction issues. The NCPG was doing great work, in theory.

The Kalshi Controversy

Then came the Kalshi controversy.

Kalshi, an event contracts/prediction market platform, gave a $2 million donation to the NCPG for a two-year investment to fund a new “trader health and safety initiative.” For Kalshi, a company that has seen revenue increase tenfold in 12 months, it’s barely pocket change. But for the NCPG, it’s a substantial sum.

Why is this controversial? Because almost every regulator and problem gambling organisation in the US is aligned against the spread of prediction markets. They argue that these markets should come under the gambling regulator’s auspices, not a federal regulator that has no experience of actual gambling—and certainly no experience of gambling addiction.

In other words, the NCPG’s own members are working directly against Kalshi and similar companies. And yet, the NCPG accepted a massive donation from one of those companies.

The Fallout

The consequences were swift and severe. The Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB) left the NCPG. The Nevada Council on Problem Gambling (NVCPG) followed suit.

Why? Because they are protesting the funding. And their complaints are not trivial. They see the NCPG’s acceptance of Kalshi’s money as a form of selling out—taking cash from a company whose very business model the NCPG’s members oppose.

Losing Nevada and Michigan doesn’t just look bad. It’s stunningly awful. It is highly likely that more states will follow suit.

The Due Diligence Question

How the NCPG didn’t see this coming is a mystery. The due diligence they performed (or failed to perform) is a case study in what not to do.

In practical terms, one suspects the message was: “Lads, the cheque’s cleared. You’re in.” But the issue is one of trust. We’ve all seen how money affects the winds of politics. How a massive donation is often followed by favourable words in government, or even nicer laws. It’s been that way for decades.

Whether Kalshi is explicitly buying favour is not just the point—though it’s part of the point. What matters just as much is that it looks like buying favour. And when an organisation that exists to protect against gambling harm looks like it’s in the pocket of a gambling-adjacent company, it loses its credibility.

The Kalshi Contradiction

Kalshi and other prediction market companies have been saying for months—actually, for years now—that what they offer is not gambling. “Definitely, absolutely, positively not gambling. No way, buddy! And I’ll fight anyone that says it is!”

Yet, they gave money to an organisation whose name literally includes the phrase “Problem Gambling.” And the NCPG set up a whole new membership category—“Financial Services and Trading”—to accommodate Kalshi and its ilk.

It might be worth Kalshi checking the receipt from the NCPG. That ‘G’ stands for gambling.

Hey, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and bets like a duck, it’s probably a duck.

Lessons from the Kalshi Case

Trust Is the Currency of Problem Gambling Organisations

The Kalshi controversy tells us something vital: for organisations like the NCPG, trust is everything. Their credibility is their most important asset. If they lose the trust of regulators, of state councils, of the public, they lose their ability to function.

Money is necessary—but not at the cost of trust.

Perception Matters as Much as Reality

Even if the NCPG had no intention of favouring Kalshi, the mere fact that the donation was accepted creates the appearance of conflict of interest. And when it comes to harm prevention, the appearance of conflict is nearly as damaging as an actual conflict.

Integrity Requires Hard Choices

The rejection of Kalshi’s money would have been a powerful statement. It would have said: “We are not for sale. We will not take money from companies that our own members oppose.”

It would have cost the NCPG $2 million, but it would have preserved something more valuable: their reputation.

A Framework for Ethical Industry Funding

Given the complexity of this issue, here is a practical framework for how gambling industry funding for research and treatment should work—and how it should be structured to avoid the pitfalls illustrated by the Kalshi case.

1. Funding Must Be Unconditional

When the gambling industry donates to research or treatment, it must come with absolutely no strings attached. No expectation of favourable findings. No expectation of influence over methodology. No expectation of input into researcher conclusions.

If the industry wants to fund research, it must fund it and then stand back. The research might produce findings that are unfavourable to the industry. That’s part of the deal.

2. Ring-Fence the Money

Donations should be ring-fenced for a specific purpose. For example: “This contribution is for research into gambling addiction in the disabled population.” The funding organisation then steps away and waits for the research to be done and published, likely several years later.

This reduces the risk that the funding organisation inappropriately influences the research.

3. Use Intermediary Bodies

Where possible, industry money should flow through independent intermediary bodies that can distribute it to specific researchers or treatment providers. This creates a buffer between the industry and the researchers, protecting independence while ensuring funds flow.

4. Prioritise Data Sharing Over Cash

As discussed earlier, sometimes the most valuable thing the industry can provide is not money but data. Sharing anonymised data with researchers, without conditions and in a secure way, could transform the study of gambling addiction.

5. Accept That Perception Is Part of the Game

The industry must accept that some critics will never be satisfied. Even the most transparent, well-intentioned funding arrangement will attract accusations of corruption. That’s an unavoidable cost of engaging in this space. The best response is not to retreat but to be so transparent and so clearly free of influence that the accusations ring hollow.

6. Diversify Funding Sources

No single organisation should become overwhelmingly dependent on one source of funding. The NCPG’s vulnerability to conflict-of-interest accusations was heightened by the size of Kalshi’s donation relative to its other funding. If organisations have diverse funding streams, they are less likely to be swayed by any single contributor.

Open Questions Moving Forward

Should Industry Funding Be Mandatory?

Some jurisdictions have implemented mandatory contributions from the gambling industry to problem gambling services. These typically take the form of a levy, tax, or mandated percentage of revenue. This approach has the advantage of making industry involvement non-negotiable, while removing the “voluntary” appearance that can create conflicts of interest.

Other jurisdictions prefer voluntary arrangements, arguing that mandatory levies create adversarial relationships and reduce the industry’s sense of responsibility for the outcomes of its funding.

Which approach is better? It likely depends on the jurisdiction and its history. But the question deserves serious consideration.

What Role Should Regulators Play?

Regulators have a key role in facilitating and overseeing industry contributions to research and treatment. They can ensure that donations are transparent, that they don’t create conflicts of interest, and that they genuinely go toward harm reduction. They can also set standards for data sharing and research ethics.

Can the Industry Ever Be a Genuine Partner?

Despite the difficulties, there is real potential for the industry to be a genuine partner in gambling addiction research and treatment. Many operators genuinely want to address these issues. They have the money, the data, and the scale to make a real difference.

The barriers are trust, transparency, and past behaviour. These are real barriers, but they can be overcome.

Conclusion

The controversy surrounding the NCPG and Kalshi is, in many ways, a microcosm of the broader debate about gambling industry funding for addiction treatment and research. It shows that money alone isn’t the issue—trust, independence, and transparency matter just as much.

The gambling industry has an obligation to fund treatment and research. That should be non-negotiable. But how it funds them must be carefully designed to protect the integrity of the research and the independence of the people doing it.

Nobody said this would be easy. But it is necessary. And if we handle it with care, honesty, and a commitment to doing things better, we can make real progress on one of the most difficult problems facing the gambling industry today.

It’s 2026. We have the data, the tools, and the methods. Now we need the will, the intelligence, and the courage to make it work.