Ethnicity and Gambling - Participation, risk and adverse consequences
Our Research and Impact Manager Helen Ruddock introduces new research, conducted by researchers at NatCen and the University of Glasgow, which explores how gambling experiences and adverse consequences vary between ethnic groups.
Posted 27 October 2026 by Helen Ruddock
The research draws on combined data from the 2023, 2024 and 2025 Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB). Bringing together three years of data provided a large enough sample for us to examine, for the first time, the experiences of people from White, Mixed or Multiple ethnic, Asian, Black and Other ethnic backgrounds separately.
The findings support the Gambling Commission’s corporate strategy objective of strengthening the evidence base for gambling in Great Britain, helping to ensure our understanding of gambling behaviours and harms reflects the experiences of diverse communities and informs effective, evidence-led regulation.
Differences are largely driven by higher participation in lottery draws among White participants
Participants from White backgrounds were more likely to have gambled in the past four weeks, compared with those from all other ethnic backgrounds. However, most of this difference was driven by the higher participation in lottery draws among people from White backgrounds. After excluding participants who had only played lottery draws, differences between groups became smaller.
Participation in non-lottery activities was highest among people from Mixed or Multiple ethnic backgrounds. For example, in-person betting on the outcome of events was around five times more common among people from Mixed or Multiple ethnic backgrounds than among those from White backgrounds.
Higher levels of gambling risk and adverse consequences
Among people who had gambled in the past four weeks, participants from ethnic minority backgrounds were more likely than White participants to score 8 or more on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) (indicating ‘problem gambling’). They were also more likely to report severe adverse consequences, such as relationship breakdown or losing something of significant financial value, and other potential consequences affecting health, relationships or financial resources.
Some of these differences reflected variation in demographic and socio-economic characteristics and in gambling participation. However, these factors did not fully explain the higher PGSI scores or rates of adverse consequences for most groups, suggesting that other factors could be contributing to these differences.
Differences emerge even at lower PGSI scores
Another important finding was that ethnic differences in adverse consequences were greatest at lower PGSI scores. For example, among people who gambled in the past four weeks and scored zero on the PGSI (categorised as ‘non-problem gambling’), 2.7 percent of White participants reported at least one other potential adverse consequence, compared with between 7.0 percent and 10.6 percent of participants from ethnic minority backgrounds. This suggests that some people may experience adverse consequences at an earlier stage of gambling risk, or in ways that are not fully captured by the PGSI.
Support-seeking remains below the level of need
Participants from ethnic minority backgrounds were more likely to use support services because of their gambling. However, support-seeking remained well below the levels of elevated risk and adverse consequences identified in the report. Among participants with a PGSI score of 3 or more (categorised as ‘moderate risk’ or ‘problem gambling’), around three-quarters had not sought any form of support, regardless of ethnic group.
Overall, these findings highlight the value of GSGB data in providing detailed insights into how gambling experiences and adverse consequences vary among people from different ethnic backgrounds. By combining three years of data, we have been able to identify important differences that were previously hidden within broader ethnicity categories. Further research, particularly work involving people with lived experience, will be important for understanding why people from ethnic minority backgrounds may be at greater risk of gambling-related harm, and how prevention and support can be effectively implemented.