Football regulator urged to ban Premier League clubs from unlicensed gambling money

The Premier League is bringing in a voluntary ban on front-of-shirt sponsorship from gambling companies next season, but is not clamping down on the unregulated market, which generates £4.3bn a year in Britain according to research from the Betting and Gaming Council.

Entain’s chief executive, Stella David, wrote to her counterpart at the Premier League, Richard Masters, in February proposing a meeting, which has yet to take place.

In her letter David pointed out the symbiotic relationship between sports piracy and unlicensed gambling, which has the potential to damage the competition’s lucrative broadcast model that funds the clubs, with the combined TV rights deals worth about £12bn, of which £6.7bn is from the UK.

The Campaign for Fairer Gambling’s national 2024-25 report said that 89% of illegal streams in the UK, which have more than doubled to 3.6bn in the past three years, feature adverts for bookmakers unlicensed in the UK.

Premier League clubs are free to accept sponsorship income from operators unlicensed in the UK and several are expected to move existing front-of-shirt deals to kit sleeves next season, including Everton and Stake.

The online casino was licensed in the UK until last year when it gave up its licence amid a review from the Gambling Commission into its practices, after Stake’s use of a promotional video featuring the porn actor Bonnie Blue.

Entain’s submission is a response to the IFR’s second licensing consultation, which closed this week, seeking views on a club licensing regime for the top five tiers of English men’s football, from the Premier League to the National League.

The IFR’s draft licensing code prohibits English clubs from accepting income “connected to serious criminal conduct”, and Entain is asking the regulator to confirm that covers gambling companies operating without a licence in the UK.

Under section 33 of the Gambling Act 2005 operators unlicensed in the UK are committing a criminal offence if they accept bets from British consumers.

The IFR declined to comment, but sources indicated it would consider all submissions as part of the consultation process.

The growth in unlicensed operators is a huge problem for the gambling industry that also has significant implications for wider society because unlicensed operators do not pay tax on any bets taken from the UK and there is growing evidence that some are targeting vulnerable users because they are not subject to regulation.

A report from the Gambling Commission last year found that 67% of GamStop users, who have actively excluded themselves from licensed gambling, had been targeted by advertising from unlicensed operators last year.

Research by Frontier Economics found that 1.5 million Britons bet £4.3bn last year on unlicensed sites giving it 9% market share, an increase from 2% four years ago. A report from the online intelligence analysts Yield Sec estimated that 420,000 British schoolchildren are gambling with unlicensed operators.

There are also concerns within the gambling industry that tax changes introduced last month, increasing online gaming duty from 21% to 40%, will fuel the growth of operators unlicensed in the UK.

The Premier League and its clubs opposed the creation of the IFR, whose primary responsibility is ensuring the financial sustainability of clubs, and warned from the outset of the dangers of the new body extending its influence through so-called mission creep.

The IFR is also facing calls from Kick It Out to make significant changes to its code of governance, including setting firm targets for clubs to employ minority ethnic staff and annual reporting of the diversity of their workforce.