10 of the 20 English Premier League clubs face the risk of losing sponsorship and advertising deals worth millions of pounds as the UK government considers banning sports organisations from dealing with gambling firms that are not licensed to operate in the country, according to a report by journalist Matt Hughes published on Tuesday, September 8. The government has not yet made a final decision.
The number of Premier League clubs with commercial ties to unlicensed gambling firms has risen from 6 at the start of this summer to 10, as the league seeks to mitigate the impact of the proposed ban and avoid forcing teams to terminate existing contracts without any guarantee of finding replacement deals to make up the expected revenue.
Scope of the ban and proposed timetable
The public consultation launched by the UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport ahead of drafting the final legislation closed on July 15. The proposal targets a legal loophole that allows clubs and sports organisations to contract with gambling firms not licensed in the UK, provided they do not offer their services to consumers in the United Kingdom.
The companies use geoblocking to prevent users in Britain from accessing their websites, but the government believes virtual private networks, commonly known as VPNs, allow users to bypass the barrier. The proposed ban would cover sponsorship logos on shirts, advertising around the pitch, teamwear, matchday programmes, club facilities, and naming rights for competitions and sports venues.
Under the proposal, it would be a criminal offence for any club, competition, venue or individual to accept sponsorship from an unlicensed gambling firm when the promotional activity is visible in Britain. Authorities prefer to introduce the ban in August 2027, before the start of the 2027-2028 season, giving clubs time to find new sponsors and restructure their commercial agreements.
Sponsorship shifts from shirt fronts to other spaces
The government’s move comes after a voluntary decision by Premier League clubs took effect this season to remove gambling-company logos from the fronts of match shirts. The league announced the decision in April 2023, but left other spaces available, including shirt sleeves, training wear and perimeter advertising boards.
An analysis cited in Hughes’s report found that Everton had announced a 3-year deal to place the Stake.com logo on its shirt sleeves, while Fulham moved SBOTOP’s sponsorship from the front of the shirt to training wear. The Curaçao-licensed 8XBet also has commercial ties with Aston Villa, Chelsea, Coventry City, Ipswich Town and Newcastle United, according to data cited in the report.
Entain, which owns the Ladbrokes and Coral brands licensed in Britain, said it had identified 10 clubs dealing with unlicensed operators: Fulham, Everton, Ipswich, Newcastle, Chelsea, Aston Villa, Coventry, Nottingham Forest, Tottenham and Crystal Palace. Entain could benefit commercially as the market tightens around competitors operating outside the UK regulatory system.
Consumer protection and money-laundering risks
The government is basing its action on 3 main considerations: consumer protection, market regulation and reducing the risks of money laundering. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport believes that the appearance of a gambling company’s name alongside the logo of a major club may give the public the impression that it is a legal entity regulated in Britain, even if it operates from overseas and does not provide the level of protection required of licensed operators.
The government consultation document, citing research by the UK Gambling Commission, says engagement with the illegal market is more common among younger people, frequent bettors and those showing higher indicators of gambling-related problems. In its 2026 money-laundering risk assessment, the commission also warned that illegal websites operate outside its oversight and the anti-money-laundering rules binding licensed companies.
In May 2025, TGP Europe left the UK market and surrendered its licence after the Gambling Commission told it to pay a fine of 3.3 million pounds sterling (about 4.3 million dollars) and carry out extensive reforms to its operations. Its withdrawal left companies linked to English clubs without the regulatory cover that had allowed them to maintain a presence in the UK market.
The risk to football, sporting integrity and society is real
Entain sent letters to the 10 clubs it said were dealing with unlicensed companies, noting that operators working without a UK licence are not necessarily subject to local consumer-protection tools, including self-exclusion, spending limits and affordability checks.
Sponsorship contracts and broadcasting rights
Premier League clubs believe the new restrictions could put tens of millions of pounds at risk, while the league is lobbying to avoid the ban being implemented in its strictest form, arguing that the companies concerned target Asian markets and do not offer services directly to British consumers. The government argues that the use of virtual private networks makes the separation between the two markets fragile.
The issue also extends to broadcasting rights. A report by the Yield Sec platform found that advertisements for illegal gambling companies appeared in 89% of the pirated sports broadcasts monitored in Britain. Data in the government consultation document also shows that sports-club sponsorship ranks second among the main ways consumers become aware of unlicensed gambling companies, behind social-media advertising.
The government is considering two implementation options. The first, and the one favoured by the authorities, would end all sponsorship and advertising contracts with unlicensed gambling companies on a common date in August 2027. The other would halt the signing of new contracts as soon as the legislation takes effect, while allowing existing contracts to continue until they expire, subject to a deadline ending in early August 2028.
The choice between the two options will determine the scale of potential losses for clubs, particularly teams that have signed multi-year agreements, as the dispute shifts from where sponsorship logos appear to the legality of the companies funding those contracts and the extent to which they are subject to UK oversight.
