I've little doubt that license money has benefitted the catches of some anglers. However, due to the locations I'm fishing, including the local river, I don't feel that I've seen much benefit myself. I've heard of no EA stockings of my local river in many years. The only works I know of has been weir modifications to install new, or upgrade existing, fish ladders.
Excluding salmon and sea trout, funding seems to operate on a system of greatest need rather than a more even spreading of benefit. That might be fair enough if it didn't often seem some of the rivers are a distinct case of good money being thrown after bad.
It also concerns me that, rather than for a distinct case greater good, our money is actually benefitting private individuals and landowners. Improving a watercourse and the fish in it may be beneficial to all, including anglers. However, only the landowners benefit financially from this public largesse. Only if a watercourse or stillwater is genuinely open access can I easily see the justification for spending license fee money on improving it. I don't suppose that the EA will ever turn up to stock my stillwater syndicate, quite understandably, but they'll happily do so on a river. Outside of free stretches, this only benefits a relatively small percentage of anglers. Rivers are no more a genuine public amenity than a club, syndicate or commercial stillwater is. I fail to see the real difference.
I'd also question whether these supposedly for the greater good improvements should be funded by just anglers. If they really are for the greater good, not just for the benefit of angling and anglers, then there's justification for the wider tax budget paying for it.