Analysis: Gambling’s football problem

Does football have a gambling problem? This was the question asked by the BBC in a recent article highlighting the ever-growing number of shirt sponsorships in the modern game. But in light of a number of recent media stories and regulatory warnings, perhaps the the question should be: does the gambling industry have a football problem?

Football is the most important sport to the industry in terms of revenue generation and acquisition. In Italy, around two thirds of betting is on football, in the UK online sector it is 39% of all online betting or 55% of non-horse racing betting and you see similar numbers in all the major European markets. Football betting is the betting industry. The two are inextricably intertwined.

But the ties that bind have been causing consternation recently, with media criticism coming not just in the UK but across regulated Europe. In Spain, El Confidencial drew attention to 19/20 of La Liga clubs having some form of betting partner affiliation and, of course, in Italy the government has called time on the entire practice with all betting sponsorships banned from next year.

So just what is going on here? Has the egaming industry going too far in its attempt to build links with its major sports product, or is this just growing pains in a sector adapting to increased public scrutiny?

A very modern problem

What’s not really in doubt is this is a fairly recent issue. In 2008 only two clubs in the Premier League had shirt sponsors from gambling brands compared to nine in the 2018/19 season. The only brand with a shirt sponsorship in both 2008 and 2018 is Mansion, and the vast majority in this year’s crop are new brands or those looking to get exposure into Asia.

The dual benefits of mainstream TV exposure and the legitimacy attached to being a partner of a major football club has driven and continues to drive a lot of these deals. The clubs are loaning their authenticity and brand weight to the clubs for a fee and it seems on that level a fair exchange. But it has always come with a degree of regulatory pushback.

Partly this is because football sponsorships have also long been used as a way of navigating around restrictive advertising environments. But when so many other marketing options are available there is a question if the industry should it be leaning so heavily on a model that raises so many concerns over the issue of “normalisation” of gambling for the younger generation.

It isn’t really an issue the industry can just ignore, and not least because of the sheer scale of the sponsorships that now exist.

A willing partner

What are even more prevalent than headline shirt sponsorships are the ‘betting partner’ models. Of the EPL clubs with no gambling shirt sponsors Manchester City has Marathonbet as a betting partner. Manchester United and Watford are affiliated with MoPlay, Liverpool with BetVictor and Chelsea and Spurs with William Hill, although Spurs also has Fun88 and 1XBet for various regions. Southampton has SportPesa and TLCBET, Arsenal has four betting partners (12Bet, Tempobet, SportPesa and Betfair) and Leicester has no less than five (Ladbrokes, Mansion, W88, Dafabet and bet365).

Mansion is the only gambling brand to have a shirt sponsorship deal in both 2008 and 2018

While the value of a betting partnership is debated within the industry, anyone looking on must assume it’s an immediate route to riches, such is the passion with which these partnerships are pursued these days. And it is far from just a Premier League thing. Amajority of clubs in England’s second tier have gambling sponsors, and even clubs in the third tier attract sponsors and betting partners, with Sunderland having both in terms of Betdaq and Coral. Likewise we see a similar issue in Spain, Germany, Italy or pretty much any country where the door is ajar to gambling sponsorship.

Increasingly large resource is being thrown at an area where perhaps not enough thought to the long-term consequences and it’s caused the most recent media outcry in the UK around the thorny issues of underage gambling. The issue here is firms adverts being seen on parts of club websites designed for under 18s and this has immediate media cut-through that has knock-on consequences for the sector. It allows a debate to begin on a much broader basis and the even bigger issue of legitimacy of football sponsorships themselves.

The bigger battles

The debate around containing and controlling the spread and the influence of gambling in the UK, and in particular its relationship with sport, is sprawling and nuanced and is hard to get all sides to engage in on a good faith basis. Instead, there is a bit of a head in the sand approach from the egaming industry and a combative approach from the campaigners on the other side who, in some cases fairly, feel ignored.

Operators do not want to take a step back, mostly driven by commercial imperatives and the fiercely competitive environment, while campaigners get frustrated at the lack of regulatory action and look for the more sensational stories that attract mainstream media interest. But, and this is an important one, the strategy of not engaging with its critics is not one the egaming sector is winning.

For the egaming sector to continue to grow it needs to be normalised, it needs to be seen to be part of the mainstream leisure sector with a bet on the football no morally different than having a drink before the game. But while normalisation of gambling is a clear positive for the industry this can only be if it comes with some clear controls that have arguably been lacking to date from both within and without the sector.

The nuclear option

Italy has taken the nuclear option to addressing this apparent sense of a lack of control around gambling advertising, and while this does not mean other countries are likely to follow suit the industry should be aware that no action seems the most unlikely option of all. As the industry has seen with both the FOBT debate and the issue around cartoon characters in slots gaming the weight of public opinion and media attention can leave a big impact.

Brian Chappell, one notable campaigner on the issue of player protection, noted, the main issue for the industry is what it does next and he views the only viable outcome as the various parties working together to reduce this “increasing outcry” that children and young adults are being bombarded by gambling advertising. “If the industries don’t come up with a solution, it’s certain the UK government will when the publicity becomes too embarrassing for them,” he said.

This is not a debate that is going to go away, and with the ever increasing number of sponsorships and partnerships the noise around it will only increase. What the egaming sector needs to ensure that it is ready to have a debate from an intellectually rigorous and honest starting position. This may mean compromise and it may mean conceding some ground. Because you only need to look at Italy to understand what the alternative looks like.