House of Lords veto amendment to ban gambling advertisement in football

IMAGO

The House of Lords have vetoed the amendment to ban gambling and sponsorships in football, in the latest Lords debate on the UK’s pending Football Governance Bill. 

The vote, which took place on 17 March, resulted in a clear majority of 339 to 74 against the amendment, which was raised in the most recent version of the bill, which was finished being debated this past week. 

To learn more, visit our responsible gambling in sports betting page which also offers resources and advice on where to seek help if needed. 

Having initially been introduced in October, the bill aims to create an independent regulator of the sport, and handle issues such as club licensing.  

It passed the committee and report stages in early March, with the second version of the bill being debated over the past two weeks.  

Liberal Democrat politician Lord Addington had put forward the clause to ban all gambling advertisements in the sport, 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), to slowly eliminate gambling related advertising and sponsorship once the regulator was put in place. 

However, the amendment was soon shut down, as the vote against it will see it removed from the bill. 

In his amendment, which was put forward on 11 March, Lord Addington said gambling advertising had “grown out of all recognition, into probably something none of us would even have suspected 20 years ago”. 

Asking for his fellow 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, by arguing that the regulator was there to help clubs, in particular smaller teams that face financial instability, and cutting out gambling sponsorships would cause damage to those 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. 

She also believed that a ban on gambling sponsorship in football would create a politically charged regulator.  

Fox stated: “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.” 

The UK’s minister for gambling, and sponsor of the bill, Baroness Twycross said she acknowledged the need for monitoring gambling sponsorship in football, but stated that the UK Government has already set the gambling industry a ‘task to raise standards’, to ensure gambling sponsorships are ‘proportionate and appropriate’.  

In 2023, the Premier League voted to remove betting companies from the front of team’s kits, with that rule due to come into effect from the 26/27 season. 

The bill will now move into the House of Commons for first and second readings, before moving to the committee and report stages, and a third reading. 

After that, final amendments will be considered and it will face a final vote in the commons.