The PwC "impact analysis", commissioned earlier this year by the territory government, examined all Canberra's clubs' community contributions over a seven-year period, to find out how much the contributions would cost to replace.

It quantified the wider benefits of specific contributions to each of the reported categories, such as sports and recreation, by measuring the funds against more specific criteria such as "community sport" or a clubs' "own team".

It found the cost of replacing clubs' funding in 2015-16, if another party had to cough up the money, was between $16.8 million and $33.2 million, despite clubs' only paying out $11.7 million that year, as much of the spending had wider community benefits.

But it also found contributions to clubs' own events and infrastructure, amounting to a total of $1.95 million in 2015-16, or 18.5 per cent of the total contributions that year, did not have a wider community benefit, as it would likely occur anyway or did not meet an "identified need".

It follows another recent report investigating specifically where the contributions ended up, by the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, which found many contributions actually go back to clubs or their related parties, and questioned a lack of transparency surrounding the scheme.

Clubs ACT chief executive Gwyn Rees said while he backed the report's findings on the wider community benefits of the contributions, without revenue from gaming machines, many clubs and sports teams would likely not exist.

He said clubs were also responsible for some 400 hectares of sporting grounds, which the territory government did not maintain, but were used by community, despite the report's findings such contributions would likely happen irrespective of the scheme.

Mr Rees said one example of the infrastructure spending claimed was a golf course replacing irrigation systems, that such contributions were allowed under the scheme and the funds go to more than 1000 community groups.

Overall, the analysis showed the scheme was meeting its stated purpose of ensuring clubs invest eight per cent of their net gaming machine revenue back into the community.

But it also found there were areas where the scheme could be "tightened" as it was "difficult to show the nexus between" infrastructure contributions and an "incremental community benefit", and that the level of community access to such infrastructure was not measured.

While clubs' were contributing more than the mandatory eight per cent across all spending categories, and years' analysed; it showed that the $11.7 million spent in 2015-16 was the lowest total amount spent in the previous six years, and compared to $13.2 million in 2009-10.

But Mr Rees said that over that period, clubs had also suffered the extra financial impost of tax increases in rises to liquor licensing fees and "significant changes to the rates regime" which were challenging the sector's bottom line.

By measurement category, the report found the biggest contributions in the three years to 2015-16 went to community sport, clubs' own teams, clubs' own maintenance, social assistance and "activities" such as providing groups with free room hire and equipment.

This story previously gave two figures for total community contributions in 2015-16, the article has been changed to reflect the correct figure, $11.7 million.