Video games and gambling-related harms

Video games and gambling-related harms

If you work on harmful digital behaviour, behavioural health, policy, economics, game design, law, social science, or digital media, this UKRI funding opportunity is unusually specific and unusually timely. It asks for rigorous research into the overlap between gambling and video games, including topics such as loot boxes, esports betting, and other gambling-like mechanics in digital play environments. The call opened on 8 May 2026 and currently shows Open status, with a 23 July 2026 deadline.

This is not just a generic social impact call. It is explicit about what it funds, who should lead, how applications are assessed, and where it sits in policy context. The call sits within the UKRI Research Programme on Gambling (RPG), and the funding is structured with a total programme budget of £5,000,000 and up to £1,000,000 FEC per project.

At a glance

Why this opportunity matters in 2026/2027

The public and policy context makes this opportunity unusually relevant to 2026 and 2027. UKRI links the call to the levy stream created for gambling-related harms, and the opportunity explicitly supports interdisciplinary work that can inform policy, regulation, public health messaging, and product/industry practice.

For applicants, this matters for two reasons:

First, it is a direct funding path on a clearly defined problem area where evidence remains fragmented. Research on gambling-like game mechanics is often split across epidemiology, psychology, design studies, consumer protection, and legal scholarship. This call explicitly encourages cross-sector research that can connect those silos.

Second, it is structured around impact as well as scholarship. The assessment language is strongly tied to relevance, usability, and influence on users, regulators, and intervention pathways. That usually means better-funded, higher-quality teams can produce outputs that move from publication to policy and practice.

The call is also notable because it is not a restricted-invite call. It is open and available through the Funding Service, so teams can submit if they satisfy UKRI eligibility and can demonstrate credible partnerships and ethics governance.

What the call is designed to fund

The official page frames this as funding for research that explores how gambling and gambling-like activities intersect with video games. This includes regulated forms adjacent to game environments, such as esports betting, and unregulated but gameplay-associated formats, such as social casino mechanics and loot boxes.

UKRI lists a strong priority set in the page itself, including:

• Clarifying associations between video-game related gambling-like exposure and real-world outcomes.
• Investigating emerging formats across product types and user contexts.
• Studying age-rated systems and age assurance systems as harm-prevention tools.
• Esports betting scale, exposure, and harms.
• Influencer marketing and social amplification effects.
• Gaming and gambling disorder interactions.
• Policy and regulatory evaluations across jurisdictions and models.

The opportunity explicitly asks applicants to show that studies are transdisciplinary and can produce knowledge that informs prevention and treatment, not just explanation.

Because this is a grant call, not a fixed dataset program, applicant teams need to define a tractable project with a coherent evidence pathway and deliverable outcomes. A successful application usually combines:

• A clear causal or quasi-causal argument around exposure and harm channels (with caveats where causal evidence is incomplete).
• A measurable method for translating findings to user-facing or policy-facing outputs.
• A realistic timeline that fits the 36-month cap.
• A realistic partner strategy for data access, where needed.

Eligibility and who should apply

The call is open to the UKRI communities across its councils and Innovate UK. It also states that organisations with standard UKRI eligibility can apply, and applicants should verify institutional eligibility on UKRI pages.

This is a strong fit if your application has:

1. A team-based structure including at least one UK-based lead institution.
2. Research that can benefit from interdisciplinary collaboration.
3. A clear line to measurable societal outcomes (for example, prevention tools, regulatory guidance, public-facing educational mechanisms, or safer design recommendations).
4. A willingness to follow the governance requirements, including ethics and conflict-of-interest processes.

The page is explicit that UKRI does not permit some conflicts with gambling-sector actors in funded arrangements:

• Gambling industry organisations are excluded in relevant prohibited engagement scenarios.
• Gambling Commission levy holders (subject to the levy) are excluded from receiving funding via RPG mechanisms.
• Associated industries where core business may be tied to public-harm risks are excluded.

Business, third-sector, and government bodies can participate as project co-leads in certain cases, but there are clear safeguards and exclusion criteria. This is one area where many applications fail if they rush partner design without understanding the compliance context.

International applicant pathway

Because ESRC is a lead for this program, international project co-leads are possible under ESRC project co-lead guidance. The team must structure collaborators and UK/non-UK partners carefully, ensuring they reflect both scientific necessity and UKRI compliance.

Required materials and submission design

The call is run on UKRI Funding Service (not Je-S), so application format follows the UKRI Funding Service screens and not legacy upload-heavy workflows.

The page gives a complete route:

1. Confirm you are the project lead.
2. Register/sign in on Funding Service.
3. Answer section-by-section questions in text boxes.
4. Save and return as needed.
5. Route your completed application to your research office for review.
6. Have your institution submit.

In practical terms, your best preparation path should start with your internal submission calendar, not the external date alone. UKRI explicitly warns that changes are not allowed after submission and that internal compliance and finance checks occur before final submission.

How the Funding Service questions shape competitiveness

The call includes detailed question sections with explicit reviewer expectations, which makes it important to treat the application as a structured narrative rather than a general proposal pack.

High-impact sections include:

• Vision (quality, timing, beneficiaries, significance)
• Approach (method quality, feasibility, risk management, translation)
• Applicant and team capability (team balance, leadership, delivery track record)
• Resources and cost justification (justified, outcome-linked spending)
• Ethics and RRI (especially sensitive public-harm and youth/public-facing risks)
• Data management and sharing (policy-compliant data handling)
• Declaration of Interests (mandatory and tightly enforced)
• Project partners (clear role, contributions, and agreements)

A strong approach is to align each section with what each panel and reviewer is asked to score. If you write a separate “research story” and separately write a compliance story, you usually lose coherence. UKRI assessors score against a shared logic: scientific value, delivery realism, ethical integrity, and impact pathway.

Budgeting and award expectations

The budget profile is clear: project FEC up to £1,000,000, with UKRI funding 80% of FEC. There is no separate requirement for institutional co-funding beyond standard 20% host contribution.

That said, reviewers still expect budget realism:

• You do not need a microscopic line-by-line forensic budget if your narrative is coherent.
• You do need evidence that every major cost is tied to deliverables.
• You should justify equipment, staff, engagement, travel, and data-related cost lines in a way that shows direct contribution to outputs.
• If your proposal depends on stakeholder engagement, impact activity, or public communication, those costs should be explicit.

This is one of the most common weak points. Teams often under-budget governance, co-production, and data governance, then weaken credibility when reviewers ask how they will deliver public engagement and ethically complex stakeholder work.

Ethics, conflict management, and governance expectations

This call has unusually high sensitivity around conflicts of interest and public trust. UKRI requires completion of the Declaration of Interests form by the project lead and project co-leads, and the page lists the type of interests that should be declared (including industry ties that may affect trust).

Applicants should treat this as a central issue from proposal design onward, not as a final attachment task. Practical implications:

• Flag relationships with excluded sectors early.
• If working with industry data or partnerships, predefine governance measures and independence safeguards.
• Disclose funding and consultancy pathways that might look indirect but still matter.
• If including lived-experience or public contributors with possible external ties, include robust mitigation notes.

The ethics sections also expect consideration of participant protections and safeguarding where relevant. This includes explicit thinking about public engagement risks, vulnerable participants, and youth-facing materials.

Project design strategy for a competitive submission

Below is a practical framework you can use to build a strong UKRI RPG application around this opportunity.

1) Choose one problem statement and make it testable

Strong submissions avoid proposing everything that could possibly belong to gambling harms. The review framework rewards clarity over breadth. You should define one core question with two or three sub-studies, not one sprawling omnibus project.

2) Design for impact from the start

Because this call connects directly to policy and public practice, include output pathways:

• Which stakeholder needs each output addresses.
• Whether outputs are designed for policymakers, educators, regulators, industry actors, or patient/public groups.
• How evidence from the project can be translated into practical recommendations.

3) Build a defensible evidence architecture

For topics where causal links are debated, review panels often value careful model design over over-strong claims. A high-quality submission explains:

• the uncertainty in existing evidence,
• the planned inferential strategy,
• and why your design is stronger than prior studies.

4) Make collaboration purposeful

Interdisciplinarity is encouraged, but only if each discipline has a defined role. A team with a game design specialist, public health analyst, legal/regulatory scholar, and data scientist is not automatically stronger than a focused team. It is stronger only if each role is clearly required.

5) Invest early in data and access planning

If your project needs industry-provided data or platform-level access, that should be planned before submission. The Funding Service process is less forgiving of uncertain access chains than some traditional grants.

6) Treat TR&I and institutional safeguards as part of the design

Trusted Research and Innovation requirements often appear to be administrative, but they are deeply tied to risk score and compliance. Build these into your proposal language:

• international collaboration risks,
• export control relevance,
• secure data handling,
• and partner due diligence plans.

Common mistakes and how to avoid them

Mistake: assuming this is unrestricted research funding

This is a themed and governed program with strict integrity filters. If your team relies on funding or data from disallowed categories, reviewers may reject before scientific merits can carry you.

Mistake: writing “partner-led” without compliance structure

Partnerships can add value, but only when formally justified. Many applicants treat partner letters as decoration. UKRI expects project partners to have clear contributions, and if you claim a partner’s resources or data, those claims should be operationally credible.

Mistake: weak distinction between research question and policy recommendation

This opportunity is strongest for teams that move from mechanism to implication. If you only deliver descriptive statistics without translation logic, your impact score weakens.

Mistake: underestimating the application architecture

This opportunity has long-form sections with specific word limits and reviewer check criteria. Treat word limits and section expectations as part of the scientific plan, not copyediting afterthoughts.

Mistake: ignoring the no-change rule after submission

UKRI is explicit that submitted applications cannot be changed. Build a robust internal review cycle and freeze cycle before final submission.

Frequently asked practical questions

Is this only for gambling researchers?

No. The page explicitly encourages multidisciplinary teams across psychology, sociology, policy, economics, game design, law, behavioural science, computer science, and communication fields. This can work for teams that combine technical and social expertise.

Is it too early to apply with preliminary evidence?

Yes, if your proposal has a clear design and feasible method. Not every output needs to come from a mature publication record as long as the project design is robust and the team can execute.

Can this support industry engagement?

Yes, but with careful conflict boundaries. Industry participation is possible and often useful, especially for data, context, or implementation pathways, but UKRI expects independence and public-interest alignment.

Is matching funding needed from third parties?

No formal matched funding requirement beyond standard UKRI FEC structure. Direct and in-kind partner contributions are possible and encouraged when they improve delivery.

Are international teams allowed?

Yes, with explicit international co-lead pathway under ESRC policy and with UK leadership structure aligned to funding service rules.

Suggested timeline for applicants

Because the deadline is fixed at 4:00pm UK time on 23 July 2026, teams should count backward:

• By early June: finalise concept, data strategy, and partner list.
• Mid June: complete first full draft of Vision + Approach.
• Late June: submit draft to internal reviewers.
• Early July: finalise budget, DoI, and governance statements.
• By mid-July: route through institutional systems and collect partner confirmations.
• Final days: internal compliance + read-only check; then submit ahead of deadline.

The one point that matters most is that this call uses the UKRI Funding Service and the institutional submission route. Your own project office becomes a critical checkpoint, so allow room for that.

Official links and next step

The official opportunity page is the governing source and should be your first and last source for details:

• Official funding page: https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/video-games-and-gambling-related-harms/

For best readiness, build your working checklist against it directly, especially the assessment criteria under Vision, Approach, Resources and Costs, Ethics/RRI, Data Management, and Declaration of Interests.

Before opening a draft on Funding Service, run an institutional pre-check against:

• UKRI eligibility of the host institution.
• Partner and data access feasibility.
• Declaration of interests sensitivity.
• TR&I and ethics readiness.

This call is a serious but navigable opportunity. With a focused scientific question, transparent governance, and strong cross-sector method design, applicants can produce applications that are both academically credible and practically relevant.