The United Kingdom’s Gambling Commission (UKGC) is preparing to release its Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB). However,the GSGB has previously faced claims of sampling bias due to its methodological approach. Talking to Next.io, however, the UKGC said it did not “recognize” claims that it is preparing to knowingly publish inaccurate results.
UKGC Says Its Transparent with Its Sampling Methods
According to the UKGC, it recognized that all survey methodologies have inherent strengths and limitations and had been transparent about these throughout the development of the GSGB. However, it also defended the transparency of the UKGC’s approach throughout the research process, stating that it had published detailed technical information during the development of the GSGB.
It insisted that it has been open about the survey’s strengths and limitations, and engaged extensively with stakeholders and independent experts. The regulator also added that the survey methodology had evolved through pilot and experimental phases before being designated as the UKGC’s official statistic.
Interestingly, this isn’t the first time the UKGC has been criticized for how it has conducted the GSGB. Last year, the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) said there is a lot of room for improvement, to which the UKGC responded, saying that while the survey is imperfect, it is also crucial to be done.
What Do Critics Say?
The OSR’s remarks were based on research done by Professor Patrick Sturgis of LSE. In 2024, he published an independent review of the inaugural GSGB, concluding that the survey sample may have contained a disproportionately high number of gamblers compared with the wider British population.
He argued that people who gamble may be more inclined than non-gamblers to respond to a survey explicitly focused on gambling because they perceive it as more relevant to them. This form of non-response bias could inflate estimates of both gambling participation and gambling-related harm. As Sturgis noted, it introduces a non-negligible risk that the survey overstates the true level of gambling and gambling harm in the population.
Subsequent experiments, published in August 2025 by Sturgis and colleagues at the LSE and NatCen Social Research, examined this potential source of bias. They found that explicitly mentioning gambling in the survey invitation increased reported gambling participation by 4%.
The proportion of respondents recording a Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) score above zero was also 1.8% higher among those who received the gambling-specific invitation. However, Sturgis noted that this difference did not reach statistical significance. Despite that, last year, the UKGC implemented some of Sturgis’ recommendations to improve its methodology.
The Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) also criticized the UIKGC’s methodology and often cites the National Health Service (NHS)’s survey, which indicates that 0.7% of the population suffers from problem gambling. Meanwhile, the GSGB reports that 2.7% of participants scored eight or higher on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI), a significantly higher number.
However, the UKGC countered by explaining that the GSGB and NHS-led surveys employed different methodologies and therefore should not be considered directly comparable. The regulator also said that Policymakers should consider the GSGB alongside other sources of evidence to develop the most comprehensive possible understanding of gambling behavior.
In other news around the UKGC, Evolution reached a $6.4 million settlement with the regulator regarding a license review initiated in 2024.