Premier League clubs agree to withdraw gambling sponsorships on front of shirts

[logfiles]

According to the article by Sky Sports

Premier League clubs have agreed to withdraw gambling sponsorships on front of shirts.

There are eight current Premier League clubs with gambling companies as shirt-front sponsors, with an estimated value of £60m per annum; The change will begin at the start of the 2026/27 season

A Premier League statement read: "Premier League clubs have today collectively agreed to withdraw gambling sponsorship from the front of clubs' matchday shirts, becoming the first sports league in the UK to take such a measure voluntarily in order to reduce gambling advertising.

Teams with betting sponsors on shirts:

    Bournemouth
    Brentford
    Everton
    Fulham
    Leeds
    Newcastle
    Southampton
    West Ham

More information in the article

 I kind of have mixed feelings on this, especially when it comes to crypto related gambling sites. When a crypto related service is advertised, it also indirectly advertises crypto


What are your thoughts about this?

[1715320415]

1715320415

[1715320415]

1715320415

[1715320415]

1715320415

[1715320415]

1715320415

[JeffBrad12]

I think that more statements from the article must be added

"To assist clubs with their transition away from shirt-front gambling sponsorship, the collective agreement will begin at the end of the 2025/26 season."

Premier League clubs will be allowed to secure new gambling sponsorship for the front of shirts until the ban commences.

Current sponsorship deals with gambling companies can remain in place for the next three years too.

It is understood that gambling brands can feature in other areas, which include shirt sleeves and on advertising hoardings, beyond the 2025-26 campaign.

That means it's still safe to for the club to wear shirt-front gambling sponsorship until three years later. It's quite clear that if the new regulation is still allowing gambling sponsorship to advertise their service but in the different area of shirt.

I will add more.

Carolyn Harris, the chair of the Gambling-Related Harms All-Party Parliamentary Group, believes shirt sponsorship by betting companies "normalises" gambling for children, and that gambling sponsorship in sport in all its forms should - and would - be banned. it seems like that KYC may be very useful to protect children from gambling.

It seems like that KYC will be playing a very important role to prevent the children to play gambling. I see no solution other than implementing KYC. That will be enough to prevent children to gambling rather than fully banning gambling sponshorships.

[Oshosondy]

Similar thread

Can this be effective against the increasing numbers of gamblers?

Did you know this thread? I haven't seen your post there.

Edit: lock this thread.

[tusandii]

Isn't having a betting sponsor in front of the jersey a benefit for some of the sponsored teams because they get tax from the name printed on the jersey?
After all, many fans of football teams are also gamblers.
Gambling cannot be removed from sporting events because sports betting is commonplace and cannot be stopped.
Even though their goal is to reduce gambling advertisements, I'm not sure gambling advertisements can really be limited because gambling has existed since ancient times and has spread to all levels of society.
Gambling sites will look for other easy ways to do advertising so that eliminating gambling sponsors will not have a major effect on gambling advertising.

[len01]

-snip


What are your thoughts about this?

I have the opinion that it seems that this regulation will not be fully implemented yet. because if it really is a new plan to reduce the gambling population, it will be very difficult.
even though on the other hand almost all football teams need sponsors from gambling to get additional income money.
I think these regulations will still have pros and cons in the future.

Isn't having a betting sponsor in front of the jersey a benefit for some of the sponsored teams because they get tax from the name printed on the jersey?
After all, many fans of football teams are also gamblers.
Gambling cannot be removed from sporting events because sports betting is commonplace and cannot be stopped.
Even though their goal is to reduce gambling advertisements, I'm not sure gambling advertisements can really be limited because gambling has existed since ancient times and has spread to all levels of society.
Gambling sites will look for other easy ways to do advertising so that eliminating gambling sponsors will not have a major effect on gambling advertising.

but sadly the problem is not only in eliminating gambling ad campaigns but these regulations are made to normalize gambling to prevent children from gambling as @JeffBrad12 said

[FanEagle]

Stake and sportsbet.io had it on Everton and Southampton if I am not wrong, at some point it was also Watford too back in the day. I think it would be terrible for business to be fair but if you have the money for it then you could go somewhere else. Remember, these are the crypto casinos that pay these clubs, they can maybe find an alternative or maybe not, 10 million just for Everton is unheard of and they will certainly not find anyone willing to pay that much for example.

And yet, if Stake could just pay that to someone else, they could find many clubs willing to accept, or maybe in another sport, they have the money to sponsor anyone they like, hell even whole leagues for that kind of money in smaller leagues.

[Yogee]

What are your thoughts about this?

They don't have a choice but to comply. I think they are even lucky to have three more years of gambling sponsorship.

Newcastle should be fine since they have an owner with enough resources. The mid and low tier clubs will take a bigger loss.

Isn't having a betting sponsor in front of the jersey a benefit for some of the sponsored teams because they get tax from the name printed on the jersey?

Other companies will most likely get a deal as replacement so clubs gets taxed either way. Maybe proceeds from sponsorship would decrease a bit but it wouldn't hurt the Government.

[swogerino]

I think this is a good move for me personally as every time I see a team that is being sponsored for example from bwin,bet365 or sportsbet or any other casino I immediately start thinking bad about such team when they are the favorite and they lose the game.My first thought is that it is because of such sponsorship that maybe they get impacted and maybe these casinos ask a favor of such team to come out with this result for such game.I know this is a heavy accusation but this starts in my head as soon as I see Real Madrid losing,Juventus losing,Arsenal losing or any other team that is being sponsored by such companies,so overall for me personally it is a good move but anyone has his own opinion,does not mean that if is good for me is good for anyone else.

[logfiles]

Similar thread

Can this be effective against the increasing numbers of gamblers?

Did you know this thread? I haven't seen your post there.

Edit: lock this thread.

I definitely didn't see it, perhaps because of the choice of title the OP of that thread used, otherwise it wouldn't make sense for me opening duplicate threads. At least, I am aware that's not a cool thing to do.

Locking this thread now. Anyone who want to discuss the topic can continue in this thread - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5448727.msg62086042#msg62086042