A series of legal challenges had to be fought before campaigner-aligned gambling harm organisations could secure a share of UK government funding worth more than £9.4 million.
The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, the UK government’s harms prevention body, ultimately awarded the money across four organisations with ties to gambling reform campaigners.
Matt Zarb-Cousin’s gambling blocking software company Gamban walked away with the largest individual allocation, receiving just over £2.7 million from the funding pot.
Chapter One, another campaigner-aligned charity, secured the second largest share at £3,057,218, narrowly edging out Gamban in total terms.
Gambling with Lives, the charity that represents families bereaved by gambling-related suicide, was awarded £1,881,859 as part of the same funding round.
GamLearn rounded out the four successful organisations, receiving £1,831,218 from the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities.
One significant structural problem that complicated the process was that the government body had no formal appeal mechanism in place for third sector groups that failed to secure funding in the initial round.
That absence of an appeals process meant legal challenges became the primary route through which many of the organisations eventually obtained their funding.
At least one campaigner involved in the process has alleged that political interference played a role in shaping the outcomes of the original funding decisions.
The dispute reflects a longer-running tension in the sector over whether legacy charities, historically supported by industry money, should have been given priority over groups more closely aligned with gambling reform campaigns.
A source with an oversight role in the process confirmed to industry publication NEXT.io that the failure to fund campaigner-aligned bids in the first instance had been a significant point of concern among those watching the process closely.
The resolution of those disputes through legal pressure rather than administrative review raises questions about how future funding rounds for gambling harm organisations will be structured and governed.
