IFR urged to ban Premier League clubs from unlicensed gambling sponsorship
Independent Football Regulator (IFR) has been urged to prohibit Premier League clubs from accepting sponsorship from gambling operators that are not licensed in the UK, following a response from Entain during the regulator’s latest licensing consultation.
IFR consultation sparks call for a ban on unlicensed gambling sponsors
The industry body’s second licensing consultation attracted a formal submission from Entain, which asked the IFR to clarify that its draft code should bar clubs from deals with operators lacking a UK licence. This season, clubs including Everton (Stake), Sunderland (W88), Fulham (SBOTOP), Bournemouth (bj88) and Burnley (96.com) have front‑of‑shirt deals with unlicensed firms, and 18 of the 20 clubs have displayed ads for such operators on stadium LED boards.
Financial stakes: £4.3bn unlicensed betting market and club revenue
- £4.3bn – estimated annual turnover of the unlicensed gambling market in Britain (Betting and Gaming Council).
- £12bn – total Premier League TV rights value, with £6.7bn generated in the UK.
- 89% – share of illegal streams that feature adverts for unlicensed bookmakers (Campaign for Fairer Gambling report).
- 1.5 million Britons placed £4.3bn bets on unlicensed sites last year, representing a 9% market share (Frontier Economics).
- Approximately 420,000 British schoolchildren are estimated to gamble with unlicensed operators (Yield Sec).
Implications for the Premier League’s commercial model and fan protection
The symbiotic link between sports piracy and unlicensed gambling, highlighted by Stella David of Entain, threatens the league’s broadcast‑driven revenue model. Unregulated operators do not pay UK gambling tax and are reported to target vulnerable users, with 67% of GamStop‑excluded players exposed to their advertising.
What the next regulatory round may bring for clubs and operators
The IFR’s draft licensing code already bans income “connected to serious criminal conduct”. If the regulator adopts Entain’s clarification, clubs could be forced to move existing front‑of‑shirt deals to sleeve placements or terminate them entirely. A stricter code could also trigger broader “mission‑creep” concerns from clubs wary of the IFR’s expanding remit.