The Football Governance Bill has been approved by the UK’s House of Lords – but without some recently proposed amendments that would have effectively banned gambling sponsorships in football.
Peers considered the Bill in its third reading on Monday, carrying three amendments but rejecting amendments suggested by Lord Addington, a Liberal Democrat peer, who stated that “football might be one place we could do without” betting advertising.
One of Addington’s amendments was withdrawn during the report stage of the Bill and another was not moved forward by the House during this stage. During the third reading on Monday, his fourth and final amendment, amendment 53, was rejected by 339 votes to 74.
The Bill’s key measure is the creation of an Independent Football Regulator. Addington’s amendment would have set the regulator a duty to “prevent advertising and sponsorship related to gambling in English football. English football must not promote or engage in advertising or sponsorship related to gambling”.
During debates, some Lords did express sympathy with Addington’s motives and desire to see a reduction in betting advertising and visibility, particularly in football, but questioned whether the Football Governance Bill was the right avenue for Addington to propose his reforms.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton said “I am not sure that this is the vehicle for what he actually wants to do”, despite agreeing with Lord Addington on some issues and arguing against “some of the tactics used by gambling companies to suck people into becoming addicted”.
Baroness Fox of Buckley also raised a counterarguement expressed by both the betting industry and sports stakeholders, such as the Chair of the English Football League (EFL) Rick Parry, over the past few years.
“One of the aims of the Bill is that the football regulator will help clubs, particularly smaller clubs, become financially sustainable and avoid financial jeopardy,” she said.
“That has been a compelling and convincing argument for this Bill. So why would we cut off a perfectly legitimate source of funding in the form of lucrative sponsorship, which is what these amendments would do?”
Regardless of Addington’s amendments not making it into the final draft of the Football Governance Bill, his proposals and comments should make the betting and sports sectors alert to the fact that there is still a lot of dissatisfaction.
Should Addington’s amendments have been approved, the bill would have effectively overridden the measures of the Gambling Act review and the Premier League’s self-imposed ban on front-of-shirt sponsorship deals, set to come into effect for the 2026/27 season.
The extent of betting sponsorship in sport has been a cause of concern for politicians and members of the general public for some time, being particularly vocal during the Gambling Act review from 2020-2023.
It seems that the review and the Premier League’s ban have not satisfied reform advocates, many of whom view a total ban on gambling sponsorship – as seen in the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain – as the only appropriate measure.
Maybe when the Premier League’s ban comes into force in a year’s time some of the more vocal voices will quieten down, due to the English top-flight being by far the most visible football league in the country – and even beyond England’s borders.
However, stakeholders would benefit from ensuring partnerships uphold responsible principles and are seen to actively shy away from younger demographics.
Sports clubs perhaps could also benefit from only partnering with licensed, trusted operators familiar with the public, avoiding the PR nightmare that can sometimes come when partnering with less recognisable entities.
Don’t forget to subscribe to our Telegram channel!
