UKGC – The Broken RET System

Today I’m working on a return to the UKGC detailing what BetBlocker has received in RET contributions between April ‘22 to March ’23. In itself this is nothing remarkable or unusual. We rightly have to provide these to allow the Gambling Commission to understand the?funding?we, as a RET organisation, are receiving and to ensure the regulator has a clear view of which licensees have donated where.

What is remarkable is how tough it has been to get donations this year.

As a charity directly on the UKGC’s RET list, we are among a small number of organisations that the UKGC has accepted as fit to receive RET contributions from gambling operators. The current system, however, places substantial pressure on operators to give their RET contributions to GambleAware, who then redistribute those contributions as they see fit. The RET list has little to no apparent bearing on the decisions that GambleAware make.

That leaves the rest of the organisations on the RET list fighting over a very small proportion of the total RET contributions or having to try and seek approval from GambleAware.?

Tragically, over the course of this year, this imbalance in funding distribution has forced a number of RET charities to let go of staff and downsize their operational capacity, further hindering their ability to provide support to those in need. For BetBlocker the funding shortage has meant simply holding to our current app, with no funding for R&D to advance the service.

While we firmly believe that GambleAware serves a necessary and worthwhile function – engaging in the bureaucratic process to assess the projects that warrant funding is a huge undertaking – where the other RET approved organisations are effectively choked out of the funding process due to the pressure to direct all funding to this gatekeeper charity, something has gone deeply wrong with the whole RET system.

The Cost of Blocking Software

BetBlocker received donations from less than 1 in 10 remote gambling licensees in the UK of the course of this year. Our funding levels are tiny for compared to the number of users we support.

To put our service into context: for BetBlocker to provide blocking software to a user for a year costs us less than a quarter of the annual subscription fee charged by the nearest equivalent commercial service to deliver the same service.

The truth is that blocking software is not expensive to provide. The charitable model is without question the most effective way of delivering this service, both financially for the sector and functionally for users.

We do receive funding outside of the RET scheme, which is fabulous. Operators who choose to donate without the regulatory requirements that exist in the UK. But it will come as no surprise that these contributions are less frequent.

Throughout the numerous conversations I've had with operators over the years, we've become well-versed in the considerable costs they face when purchasing licenses for commercial blocking software to give to players. Often, these licenses go unused due to the stigma of having to request a license number, or registering, or because players change their minds after receiving it hours or even days later. This expense is not insignificant. BetBlocker offers a solution that doesn't require any of these hurdles and can be downloaded and installed in less than two minutes.

I’ll say it again – providing blocking software doesn’t need to cost a lot.

With 193 remote casino licenses issued by the Gambling Commission, if each licensee allocated a small portion of their RET budget annually to BetBlocker, our funding would far surpass that of last year. This would eliminate the need for any operator to purchase licenses for commercial blocking software, and we could complete all the upgrades that have been on our 'to-do' list for the past four years.

Instead, time and time again when we reach out to operators, we hear that they’ve already sent their RET contributions to GambleAware. Why wouldn’t they? The regulator seems to favour this approach. The press berates the industry if it looks to have a say over where funding is sent. And the truth is, it’s logistically easier for operators to send the whole sum to one organisation than try to work out which charities to support themselves.

As with so many things in life, the most beneficial choice is also the path of greatest resistance.

The licensees that choose to make contributions to BetBlocker, and other similar smaller RET list organisations, are sticking their necks out to fund projects they feel should be getting funding and that are struggling due to the way the system functions. We deeply appreciate their support.

It shouldn’t be that way.

The RET Problem

The way that the RET system functions currently and, if the rumours we’re hearing are true, the potential changes that the new white paper will introduce, creates huge challenges for the smaller organisations working to support those with gambling disorder.

Being on good terms with many of the organisations on the RET list, every organisation I know struggles to get the funding it needs via the RET scheme. With such a large proportion of funding going straight to GambleAware to manage, many RET-approved organisations feel left out, despite helping thousands of vulnerable people every day.

What am I saying? Well, for operators, I’m reaching out to ask you to find a little of your RET budget to set aside to send to us this year. 193 remote casino licenses. Not even 10% of those licenses have made a RET donations to BetBlocker this year. I know the industry can do better than that if the right people see this post.

To the Gambling Commission , I’m asking that your team put some thought into whatever new funding structure you are?considering and?ensure that the organisations that your team approved as appropriate to receive RET funding can actually access this funding. We would also strongly recommend that the opaque process for regulatory settlements?also?needs to be urgent attention.

It would only take a small fraction of the overall RET contributions to be earmarked to be distributed to the non-GambleAware RET organisations to ensure that these?charities and organisations,?that are on the front line of delivering support to those negatively impacted by gambling, can do so consistently and without interruption to service.

My concern right now is that if the road that is currently being pursued continues, many of these front line services will cease to exist in the near future and thousands of people impacted by gambling disorder will be left without the support that has been helping them cope.