A Liberal Democrat peer has proposed changes to the Football Governance Bill targeting betting sponsorship in football, showing that the debate around the topic is far from over despite the regulatory developments of the past few years.

In a House of Lords debate on the bill this week, Lord Dominic Hubbard, 6th Baron Addington, who is also Vice President of the UK Sports Association, proposed four amendments to the legislation relating to betting sponsorships in football.

Lord Dominic Hubbard, 6th Baron Addington – Source: UK Parliament

“Certain sports such as horseracing tend to be dependent on gambling, but we have something of a surfeit of gambling advertising on our televisions: it is everywhere,” he said.

“In these amendments, I am suggesting that football might be one place we could do without it. The revenue might be very useful to the clubs involved, but we have already heard about the huge reach of football as a subject, and the fact that there is a huge demand for it. Can we not get rid of gambling here?”

None of Addington’s amendments have made it into the Football Governance Bill following its report stage, with one being withdrawn and another failing to move forward by the House, while the third and fourth have not been heard by the House of Lords yet.

The amendments specifically sought to initiate a review of advertising and sponsorship in English football, create a legal duty for clubs to prevent gambling advertising and sponsorship in football, and a duty to eventually phase out this practice entirely.

“I hope the Government will say that they are going to do something on gambling in this Bill,” Lord Addington continued.

“I have given four options, and a bit of movement might make me more willing to withdraw the amendment. If I do not hear that at the appropriate time, I will press the amendment to a vote, because we have to draw a line in the sand at some point.”

Though the amendments have not been adapted into the legislation, the suggestion of these changes shows that there is still a lingering appetite for further betting law reform, particularly around marketing, in the public and political spheres.

New debate, same talking points

The conclusion of the Gambling Act review in 2023 and its subsequent recommendations have clearly left some unsatisfied. Calls for a ban on sports sponsorship were vocal throughout the two-and-a-half year duration of the Gambling Act review.

This was not adopted in the final white paper, which instead recommended a new Code of Conduct for sponsorships which has since been adopted by various sports, and the Premier League has committed to withdrawing front-of-shirt sponsorships next season, though retaining sleeve deals. Many reform advocates felt these changes have not gone far enough.

The Football Governance Bill is unrelated to the Gambling Act review and instead focuses on the governance and regulation of English football. The legislation originated under the Conservative government but was postponed during the July 2024 general election, and was then subsequently revived by the Labour government.

Addington’s move to use the Bill to revive the debate around betting sponsorship has received some support from across the house. Baroness Taylor of Bolton, a Labour peer, expressed some sympathy, in her words, for his proposal, but added that “I am not sure that this is the vehicle for what he actually wants to do”.

“I am personally not against gambling, per se, but I am against some of the tactics used by gambling companies to suck people in to becoming addicted and gambling more than they can afford,” Baroness Taylor said.

“This is a bigger issue than just football; therefore, I understand if my noble friend the Minister cannot accept that we should be doing this in this Bill. But it is important that we are aware of that problem and that football clubs can help in these situations.”

Credit: charnsitr / Shutterstock

Many of the arguments presented in the House this week will be familiar to industry observers, whether stakeholders or reform advocates. The views in opposition too feel all too familiar.

Baroness Fos of Buckley, an independent peer not affiliated with any party, accused the amendments of being indicative of an “intrusive and disproportionate regulatory overreach” and argued that losing betting sponsorship revenue would be detrimental to clubs. This would ultimately defeat the point of the bill in the first place, she said.

“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?”

Addington’s amendments may not have been written into the bill, which will likely pass into law due to having broad cross-party support in parliament. However, this may not have been the peer’s only intention, with the amendments potentially reviving the debate around sponsorship which many thought had been resolved two years ago.

It is also impossible to ignore the fact that a large segment of football fandom have become dissatisfied with the extent of football sponsorship, particularly the presence of many unfamiliar offshore firms on English football kits.

The industry and its sporting partners must prove the legitimacy of their relationship in action if they wish to avoid further public, political and regulatory scrutiny.

SBC News has reached out to the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) for comment on Lord Addington’s proposed amendments.

 

 

Source