Overall gambling participation in Great Britain dipped slightly in 2025, according to the latest Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB).

The Gambling Commission’s publication revealed that 59% of adults gambled in the past 12 months, down marginally from 60% a year earlier.

Participation over the previous four weeks edged down from 48% to 47%, while online gambling remained unchanged at 38%.

Excluding National Lottery-only players, gambling participation slipped from 41% to 40% over the past year, and down from 28% to 27% over the previous four weeks.

The National Lottery remained the country’s most popular gambling product, with 31% of adults purchasing tickets, while participation in other charity lotteries held steady at 16%. Scratchcard participation fell slightly from 13% to 12%.

Problem gambling rate dips … slightly

One of the big talking points since the inaugural GSGB in 2023 has been the rate of problem gambling in the UK.

The survey showed a modest decline in the proportion of adults classified as experiencing problem gambling under the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI), with the percentage scoring eight or more falling from 2.7% in 2024 to 2.4% in 2025. 

Moderate-risk gambling increased slightly from 3.1% to 3.5%, while the proportion of low-risk gamblers declined from 8.8% to 7.8%.

The Commission said the latest figures show that “at a headline level, consumer engagement in gambling is stable over time – including the number of people who engage in gambling, the level of enjoyment people have when gambling and the number of people scoring 8 and over on the Problem Gambling Severity Index”.

It added that the survey is valuable for identifying changes among specific groups of players, noting that “beneath the headlines, we can use GSGB to spot trends and patterns at a sub-population level”, including an increase in gambling participation among men aged 55 and over.

The regulator also stressed that the findings demonstrate “the importance of understanding the broader consequences and risks of gambling from a range of measures rather than relying on one metric”.

Elsewhere, the survey found fewer people reporting harm from someone else’s gambling. 

The proportion of respondents saying someone close to them gambled fell from 48% to 43.2%, while reports of stress, conflict and severe consequences linked to another person’s gambling all declined slightly.

GSGB survey attracts criticism

However, the publication was met with renewed criticism from Dan Waugh, Partner at Regulus Partners, who questioned the reliability of the GSGB.

Ahead of the release, Waugh argued that the Commission was publishing results “in the knowledge that the results are inaccurate” and claimed they would be used to justify “tighter controls on consumers and higher taxation for licensees”.

He reiterated longstanding concerns that the GSGB reports inflated rates of gambling participation and problem gambling more than previous official surveys, including NHS Health Surveys and the British Gambling Prevalence Survey.

“[The results] reinforce findings from studies in Canada and elsewhere dating back a decade-and-a-half,” he wrote on Substack. 

“The first supports the theory of topic salience bias – that the GSGB is likely to over-sample gamblers (and highly engaged gamblers in particular) because it is advertised as a gambling survey. The second indicates that telephone surveys may under-report gambling and problem gambling. 

“The relevance of this latter finding to the question of NHS data reliability is unclear. Health Surveys are conducted in-person (rather than by phone) and use self-completion booklets specifically to guard against the effects of social desirability bias.”

Writing for his Substack bulletin, Waugh pointed to the methodology in which the survey was conducted as a key factor in how respondents may have answered questions asked – suggesting that this does not accurately reflect gambling participation and problem gambling rates accurately.

He continued: “Previous studies have shown that in-person interviews are much less likely to be affected by this bias than telephone surveys. The Health Survey was therefore deservedly considered a ‘Gold Standard’ within the parameters of the possible; the GSGB represents more than a few steps backwards in terms of reliability, but in a direction that seems to suit the Commission and the ‘experts’ it likes to fund.

“There should be only one course of action for the Gambling Commission. As well as the ethical responsibility to do the right thing (one of the regulator’s stated values), the Commission knows that the GSGB is being used by those who wish to subvert the Gambling Act 2005 (ie, the legislation that it is charged to uphold).”

Waugh added that the GSGB is obliged to carry a more in-depth analysis of the information gathered, and to better identify any potential inconsistencies when compared to other industry surveys. 

He concluded: “As a producer of statistics, it is bound by the UK Statistics Authority’s Code of Practice, which requires it to “prominently explain the quality of the statistics, including strengths and limitations, and communicate the uncertainty in estimates”.

“In recent years, the Gambling Commission has funnelled millions of pounds into anti-gambling activism, suppressed evidence on the basis of convenience and promoted illiberal speech codes. It has skirted with conduct beyond the pale. 

“On Thursday, by publishing statistics it knows are not to be trusted, it crosses a line.”