Funding for gambling addiction research and treatment is a complex issue, and it shouldn’t be, but it is. I recall seeing a critic of the gambling industry on Twitter advocating for the sector to financially contribute to addiction research one week, only to reverse the stance the following week, insisting the industry should not be involved at all. This inconsistency highlights a need for rational discussion rather than emotional reactions.
As we move further into 2026, separating a donation from its intended outcome is straightforward. For instance, a contribution could be directed toward studying gambling addiction among people with disabilities. After granting the funds, the organization in charge can simply wait for the research outcomes, which may take years.
Why would anyone suspect the gambling industry would want to sway such research? There’s little opportunity for the industry to manipulate findings.
A key argument for industry involvement in research and treatment is straightforward: it possesses extensive data. Critics might argue that the industry has played a role in the problems faced by players—especially in cases of ignored self-exclusions and marketing efforts to individuals who have opted out. If the industry is partly responsible, why not be involved in uncovering necessary insights about the issue?
Unfortunately, there is scarce funding for gambling addiction treatment, often grouped with other forms of addiction treatment despite differing methodologies. While issues like drug abuse can exacerbate gambling addiction, the treatment approaches for each are distinct.
I believe the industry should contribute to both addiction treatment and research in every nation where gambling is legalized. Although funding research isn’t obligatory, sharing anonymized data with researchers could significantly help the industry address this pressing issue. Quality data is vital for advancing research, and sharing it can help shape the dialogue surrounding gambling addiction.
However, funding varies greatly in value. Many organizations are doing essential work in this area, particularly the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) in the United States. The relevance of their efforts has never been more pronounced, especially as the U.S. has struggled to adapt to the consequences of legalizing sports betting after the repeal of PASPA. Without a federal regulatory framework, states have been left to navigate these challenges independently.
Despite the NCPG's critical mission to advance public understanding of gambling and related harms, recent events cast a shadow over its work. The Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB) and the Nevada Council on Problem Gambling (NVCPG) recently distanced themselves from the NCPG due to its acceptance of funding from Kalshi. This funding issue is significant as it has sparked protests among regulators and problem gambling advocates who believe prediction markets should not fall under federal regulatory oversight and are concerned about their impact on gambling addiction.
The NCPG’s decision to accept a $2 million investment over two years for a new “trader health and safety initiative” from Kalshi raises concerns among its members who are often opposed to Kalshi's operations. The reception of such funds, especially in an environment where trust is vital, poses a risk of undermining the NCPG's credibility. In political contexts, substantial donations often come with expectations of favorable responses, and this funding could be interpreted as an attempt to gain influence under the guise of concern for users of Kalshi’s platform.
Erosion of trust is a critical issue when financial motives seemingly dictate relationships. Losing support from states like Nevada and Michigan is alarming and could set a troubling precedent for the NCPG’s future.
Kalshi continuously asserts that its offerings are not gambling, emphasizing a clear distinction. Ironically, this is counter to the NCPG's own admission of the financial services and trading category, which evokes the very gambling that Kalshi purports to avoid. If it looks like gambling and operates like gambling, it warrants scrutiny as such.
