Last night (17 March), the house of lords voted against the amendment via a clear majority of 339 to 74. It was raised in the latest version of the Football Governance bill, which this week finished being debated in the chamber.
The bill, which was initially introduced via the house of lords in October, aims to create an independent football regulator to oversee the sport and handle issues such as club licensing.
It passed the committee and report stages in early March, and the second iteration of the bill has been debated in the house over the last two weeks.
The clause seeking to ban all gambling sponsorships and advertising in the sport was put forward by Liberal Democrat politician Lord Addington in the latest round of amendments.
“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,” the proposed clause said.
It advised the proposed football governing body, the IFR (Independent Football Regulator), should gradually eliminate advertising and sponsorship related to gambling in English football once the regulator is in place.
However, the amendment was voted against in a 339 to 74 vote during the house of lords review yesterday and as such it has been removed.
House dismisses gambling ad ban
In his amendment, initially discussed in an 11 March lords debate, Addington said gambling advertising had “grown out of all recognition, into probably something none of us would even have suspected 20 years ago”.
Calling on parliamentary members to take action, Addington added: “We have to do something here; it has got ridiculous.”
Baroness Fox of Buckley argued against the amendment on several points. First, Fox stated that the original aim of the bill was to create a football regulator that would help clubs — particularly smaller clubs with financial stability issues, and cutting out gambling ads would be most damaging to these clubs.
“Why would we cut off a perfectly legitimate source of funding in the form of lucrative sponsorship, which is what these amendments would do?” Fox asked.
Ban could create a ‘politically charged’ football regulator
She also said the ban on gambling sponsorship in football would create a politically charged regulator.
“Any special discriminatory treatment of the gambling industry as potential sponsors would imply a moralistic and politically charged decision-making about which sponsors are virtuous enough to be allowed. The regulator and this bill should keep well away from that,” Fox stated.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay echoed points made by Fox and noted that the amendment had “broader implications” for complicated issues that were not what the bill was initially created to tackle.
The UK’s minister for gambling, and the bill’s sponsor, Baroness Twycross, said she acknowledged the importance of monitoring gambling sponsorship in football but put forward that the government has already set the gambling industry a “task to raise standards” to ensure gambling advertisements are “proportionate and appropriate”.
English football’s top division, the Premier League, has already made moves to curb gambling’s prevalence in the sport. In 2023, its governance voted to remove betting companies from the front of team jerseys. This is due to come into effect for the 2026-2027 season.
Twycross added it is the government’s view that the football regulator should not have a “specific role in commercial matters such as advertising and sponsorship, which are rightly decisions for clubs.”
It is “important” to recognise the “vital revenue” that English clubs rely on that comes in from advertising and sponsorship with gambling companies, she said.
What’s next for the bill?
Next, the bill will move into the house of commons for first and second readings before hitting the committee and report stages and a third reading. From there, final amendments will be considered and it will face a final vote in the commons.
