Background
The regulatory landscape of gambling sponsorship in sport is continuously evolving. The most recent developments have seen Premier League clubs giving a voluntary commitment to remove gambling brands from the front of matchday shirts from the 2026/27 season onwards, and the introduction of a new voluntary 'Code of Conduct for Gambling Related Agreements in Football' (see here)(the Code).
The white paper 'High stakes: gambling reform for the digital age' published by the former Conservative Government (see here), called for the development of cross-sport codes of conduct to address the exposure of children to gambling advertising through sport. Consequently, a number of sporting bodies, working in conjunction with the Betting and Gaming Council, developed a cross-industry voluntary code of conduct and the Premier League, English Football League, Women’s Super League, and Football Association produced the Code in respect of football.
However, in recent weeks the Guardian and the University of Bristol have contended that the self-regulation of gambling sponsorship has generally been ineffective. In particular, the Guardian article alleges that, as of 23 September 2024, half of Premier League football clubs were not adhering to the Code, for example, advertising gambling on webpages aimed at, or featuring, under-18s, and the University of Bristol's report concluded that a number of Premier League clubs failed to adhere to the principles set out in the Code during the opening weekend of the 2024/2025 season. Gambling operators and clubs should not ignore these criticisms and would be well-advised to review the findings and work collaboratively to identify if any further improvements can be made to align practices more closely with the Code and ensure compliance with the LCCP and CAP Code.. In this article we outline the Code's principles, the complaints procedure, and the potential impact of non-compliance.
The Code's Principles
The Code is predicated on four core principles: protection; social responsibility; reinvestment; and integrity, as follows:
1. Protection
The Code aims to limit the reach and promotion of gambling sponsorships to children and vulnerable individuals.
To achieve this, the Code includes already established advertising requirements such as preventing clubs and competitions from including gambling sponsorship logos on webpages aimed at children (which would amount to a breach of the CAP Code), as well as new measures which are not contained in existing regulations, such as ensuring that mechanisms exist to enable adult supporters to opt to purchase replica kits that do not include gambling sponsorship logos, in the event they are not otherwise available to purchase.
2. Social Responsibility
The Code reaffirms the existing principle, which is already contained in the LCCP, both the CAP and BCAP Codes, and the IGRG Code for Socially Responsible Advertising, that gambling sponsorship must be promoted and delivered in a socially responsible way.
However, the provision in the Code requiring that "a reasonable and proportionate portion of gambling sponsorship inventory promotes responsible gambling messaging" is rather vague, and it may therefore be difficult for clubs and competitions to apply in practice. The IGRG Code includes a prescribed requirement for gambling operators to direct 20% of all eligible advertising (broadcast and digital) to safer gambling messaging and it would be advisable for clubs and competitions to take this into account. We also suggest that gambling operators, clubs and competitions take some time to identify each type, and the likely volume, of gambling sponsorship inventory relevant to the applicable sponsorship agreement (including social media posts, websites, perimeter boards and matchday programmes) and consider, based on that analysis, what would be a reasonable and proportionate portion for the promotion of responsible gambling messaging (and to err on the side of caution).
3. Reinvestment
A novel aspect of the Code is the principle that revenues from gambling sponsorship should be reinvested by clubs and competitions into sporting infrastructure projects and community programmes. Such reinvestment initiatives could include improving stadia and training facilities, supporting grassroots participation in local communities, and enhancing welfare and education services that are available to players.
Given the requirement for competitions to publish annual statements detailing how clubs and competitions have implemented the Code and its principles, it will be interesting to see how revenue generated from gambling sponsorships is reinvested going forward. It is likely that anti-gambling observers will scrutinise this aspect of the Code, to ensure that clubs and competitions are actually reinvesting funds for the benefit of the wider community.
4. Integrity
The fourth principle provides that the integrity of football competitions must not be compromised by, and participants in football must not be harmed by, gambling sponsorship arrangements that football clubs and competitions enter into.
Clubs and competitions must take steps to educate participants about betting integrity rules. The definition of "participant" for these purposes is drawn from the Football Association's rules and is a wide definition. Clubs and competitions will need to consider carefully how best to deploy suitable training on betting integrity to the persons captured by the definition.
Complaints Procedure
The Code anticipates a two-stage complaints procedure to address any future non-compliance by football clubs and competitions with the Code. An individual complainant should firstly contact the club or the competition directly and the relevant entity must deal with the complaint and issue a final response within 12 weeks of receiving the complaint (save where exceptional circumstances warrant a longer timeframe).
If the issue has not been resolved to the complainant's satisfaction, or if the competition or club does not provide a response within 12 weeks or (in exceptional circumstances) the timeframe communicated by the club or competition, the complainant may (within three months of receiving the final response from the club or competition) ask the Independent Football Ombudsman (IFO) to consider the issue. If the IFO upholds the complaint, it has the power to recommend that the club or competition takes steps to resolve the problem, although the issuing of financial penalties is not within the IFO's powers. Alternatively, the IFO may determine that no further action needs to be taken if the claim is without merit.
The inclusion of a complaints procedure specifically intended to address matters of non-compliance and the requirement for competitions to publish annual statements including details of non-compliance, are important aspects of the Code and, if the data indicates that there are concerns surrounding the success of the Code, pressure is only likely to mount against Government, sporting bodies, clubs and competitions to do more to protect children and vulnerable people.
Impact
Although the Code is voluntary, it has been established to complement, and to some extent enhance, existing gambling advertising rules and regulations contained within CAP and BCAP Codes, the LCCP, and the IGRG Code. As such, in some cases failure to adhere to the Code may have regulatory consequences for gambling operators, clubs and competitions.
Although the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) cannot impose monetary fines for breaches of the CAP and BCAP Codes on football clubs, competitions, and gambling operators, adverse ASA findings against such entities may have reputational consequences and, in the case of gambling operators, may result in regulatory action by the Gambling Commission. For example, the Gambling Commission issued Betway with a financial penalty of £408,915 for marketing on the children’s pages of West Ham United Football Club’s website and therefore was not socially responsible. If advertisers persistently commit breaches of the CAP and BCAP Codes and do not work constructively with the ASA, then the ASA may refer the matter to Trading Standards or the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) (which is especially important in light of the CMA's new enforcement powers granted by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act due to come into force in April 2025 – see our commentary on this here).
Concluding remarks
Anti-gambling campaigners and certain publications frequently assert that current restrictions on gambling advertising in sport are ineffective and that self-regulation has failed to achieve socially responsible advertising. In order to mitigate the risk of regulatory action, further criticism, and ultimately, the possibility of the imposition of further, more restrictive, regulations, gambling operators, clubs and competitions would be well-advised to work collaboratively to implement the Code and to assist each other in achieving compliance. Whilst gambling operators will have little control over a club's website and the supply of merchandise to clubs' stores, gambling operators should take an active interest in delivering compliance with the Code. As regulated entities, they are well-placed to assist clubs and competitions in achieving compliance and thereby mitigate the risk of regulatory action, adverse publicity, and the imposition of more restrictive regulations around gambling sponsorship, all of which are mutually beneficial.
Our specialist Betting and Gaming, Sports, and Advertising and Marketing teams are on hand to assist with any related queries that you may have.