jili tutorial

Opinion: Why the NCPG Must Rethink Its Industry Funding Model After Ohio’s Exit

By jili tutorial · September 18, 2026

Opinion: Why the NCPG Must Rethink Its Industry Funding Model After Ohio’s Exit

Introduction: A Fracture in Problem Gambling Oversight

In June 2024, the Ohio Casino Control Commission (OCCC) formally ended its relationship with the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG), joining two other state gaming regulators—Michigan and Nevada—in opposing the NCPG’s controversial $2 million partnership with Kalshi, a financial exchange that some regulators consider to be operating illegal gambling. OCCC Executive Director Andromeda Morrison made the decision official in a letter to the NCPG, writing: “I regret this action is necessary but trust you will understand the Commission’s need to ensure that it is not associated with organizations that are affiliated with companies engaged in illegal gambling in Ohio.”

This departure is not an isolated event. It exposes a deeper, systemic flaw in how the NCPG—the nation’s premier nonprofit dedicated to reducing gambling harm—funds its mission. The question at the heart of the controversy is simple yet uncomfortable: Can an organization that relies heavily on donations from the same industry it is supposed to police truly serve the interests of problem gamblers?

The NCPG’s Role and the Funding Dilemma

The National Council on Problem Gambling was established to “minimize the economic and social costs associated with gambling addiction.” It operates a national helpline, funds research, runs awareness campaigns, and certifies treatment providers. Its credibility rests on being an independent, neutral voice.

Yet the NCPG’s funding model tells a different story. A significant portion of its budget comes from gambling operators—sportsbooks, casinos, and technology providers. The NCPG’s 2026 Annual Conference in Nashville, for example, lists sponsors including Bally’s, FanDuel, DraftKings, and Caesars. These are the same companies that profit from the very behavior the NCPG aims to mitigate.

Why No Dedicated Federal Funding?

NCPG Executive Director Heather L. Maurer defends the arrangement as a practical necessity. In a statement, she explained: “These resources are critical because the US provides no dedicated federal funding for problem gambling prevention, treatment, or research—despite the federal government collecting tax revenue generated from legalized gambling, which continues to expand nationwide. This is in stark contrast to the billions of dollars invested each year in addressing alcohol, tobacco, and other substance use disorders.”

Maurer’s point is valid: unlike substance abuse, problem gambling lacks a dedicated federal funding stream. But critics argue that accepting industry money creates an inherent conflict of interest that undermines the NCPG’s mission.

The Kalshi Controversy: A Tipping Point

Kalshi is a regulated financial exchange that offers event contracts—essentially binary bets on the outcomes of real-world events. Critics claim some of its offerings, particularly around sports and political events, function as unlicensed sports betting. The NCPG’s $2 million sponsorship deal with Kalshi, announced earlier this year, sparked outrage among regulators and advocates alike.

What States Are Saying

Three major gaming states acting in unison sent a clear signal: the NCPG’s funding model is no longer tenable.

Voices of the Affected: Problem Gamblers Speak Out

Louis Ruggiero: “A Donation Isn’t an Endorsement—But It Is a Receipt”

Louis Ruggiero, a recovering gambling addict and host of the “Nothing’s Off the Table” podcast, has been one of the most vocal critics of the NCPG’s industry ties. In an interview with Gambling Insider, he stated:

“The NCPG keeps saying a donation isn’t an endorsement. Come on. Kalshi didn’t write that check out of the goodness of their heart. They bought a seat at the table with the one organization whose name means something in problem gambling. Ohio saw it, Michigan saw it, Nevada saw it. Three regulators don’t all walk out the door for no reason. Ohio did what any regulator with a spine should do.”

Earlier this summer, Ruggiero summed up the core issue: “You can’t hold the industry accountable when the industry is paying for the room. It’s that simple. The NCPG is supposed to be the national voice for problem gamblers. Instead, the people causing the problem are writing the checks and getting their logos on the banners.” He added, “Nobody bites the hand that feeds them. So the criticism gets softer. The language gets friendlier. And the guy in crisis at 2 a.m. isn’t in the room. He’s not a sponsor.”

Chris Swett: The Cost of VIP Programs

Chris Swett, a former trial attorney who lost his career and now awaits federal prison sentencing due to his gambling addiction, provided a concrete example of how operators target vulnerable players. Speaking earlier this summer, Swett described his repeated attempts to quit:

“I’d quit for a week or two, and I’d get an email from my host with offers, whether it be sporting events or just offers for free entries.”

Such practices are common. VIP programs, loyalty rewards, and personalized incentives are designed to keep high rollers—many of whom are gambling addicts—engaged. Meanwhile, the NCPG accepts sponsorship dollars from the same operators that deploy these tactics.

The Core Conflict: Neutrality vs. Industry Dependence

The NCPG’s homepage states that it is “neutral on legalized gambling.” That neutrality is essential to its credibility as a public health organization. But neutrality becomes impossible when the majority of its funding comes from operators who have a financial interest in maximizing gambling participation.

Consider the following paradox:

Ruggiero put it bluntly: “A sponsorship isn’t a commitment. It’s a receipt. It’s what they point to when a regulator or a reporter comes asking questions. If they were committed to responsible gambling, their business model wouldn’t depend on the people who can’t stop.”

What Needs to Change: A Roadmap for the NCPG

1. Diversify Funding Sources

The NCPG should aggressively pursue federal and state funding, private foundation grants, and individual donations from non-gambling sources. The lack of federal funding is not an excuse—it is a policy failure that requires advocacy, not accommodation.

2. Establish a Firewall

If industry funding is unavoidable, the NCPG must create a clear separation between funders and programmatic decisions. This could involve a blind trust, independent oversight committee, or transparent reporting of all contributions.

3. Require Independent Audits

The NCPG should submit to regular, independent audits of its financial relationships and how those relationships affect its public statements, research priorities, and policy positions.

4. Adopt a Conflict-of-Interest Policy

Similar to medical and academic institutions, the NCPG should publicly disclose all industry funding and recuse itself from any activities where a funder has a direct interest.

Conclusion: A Broken System Needs Fixing

September is Responsible Gambling Month, a time when operators, regulators, and advocacy groups come together to promote safer play. But as the Ohio exit makes clear, the current system is broken. The NCPG cannot effectively advocate for problem gamblers while taking money from the very entities that profit from their suffering.

Three state regulators have walked away. Their message is unambiguous: the NCPG’s funding model undermines its mission and its credibility. If the organization is to remain the national voice for problem gamblers, it must reassess its relationship with the industry it is meant to hold accountable.

The question is no longer whether change is needed. It is how quickly the NCPG will act—and whether it will act before more regulators, and more problem gamblers, lose faith.