Ted Orme-Claye, SBC News Editor, ponders about the newly created football regulator for English football and the financial standards it is setting for clubs.
Despite government efforts to keep the regulator and the Gambling Commission separate, could these financial standards clash with a cutback of betting sponsorships?…
The Independent Football Regulator (IFR) does not have any remit over clubs commercial relations with the gambling sector. Yet, gambling will find itself wrapped up in the discussion around football’s finances nonetheless.
In a recent statement summarising its regulatory objectives and the licensing system it will oversee, the IFR outlined that English football clubs ‘will need to demonstrate they can withstand major financial shocks as part of new licensing requirements’.
Once more questions about football’s relationship with gambling, though not in the usual sense. To date, the discourse around football and betting’s commercial tie-up has revolved on gambling harm and how to limit the exposure of gambling to vulnerable groups
It has not touched on the financial safety net betting provides to football, however – though this has been raised in the past by figureheads such as Rick Parry, Chairman of the English Football League (EFL), which has enjoyed a long-running partnership with Sky Bet – viewed as the safety first model others should follow.
No gambling remit for football regulator
The football regulator has its background in the Football Governance Act of 2025, a mandate born by the office of former PM Boris Johnson.
Though sidelines under a chaotic Conservative government, the bill re-emerged under Labour, as a ‘pledge to fans’ upheld by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).
Originally a response to the controversy and fan backlash against the attempted breakaway European Super League (ESL) in the COVID summer of 2021, the bill grew to cover other areas of governance including the finances of football clubs.
“It cannot be right that so many clubs exist on a cliff edge where one change could threaten their entire existence – fans should be debating formations not finances,” said Richard Monks, Chief Executive Officer of the IFR.
“Our licensing regime will ensure that club risk is managed appropriately, creating a more stable environment for growth and investment. The IFR will work with clubs and support them to meet the licensing requirements which are absolutely essential to our mission to change English football for good.”
Throughout the legislative process, there were attempts to write gambling into the Football Governance Bill, particularly from Liberal Democrat MPs.
Max Wilkinson and Lee Dillon, two Lib Dem MPs, attempted to force a clause requiring English clubs ‘not to promote or engage in advertising and sponsorship related to gambling’, for example.
This proposal was rejected by the DCMS and its Secretary, Lisa Nandy. The government was adamant at the time, and likely still is, that gambling should be governed by the then-reviewed 2005 Gambling Act and the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC), not by any other legislation or by the football regulator.
Football and betting in the White Paper era
Under the Gambling Act review White Paper, published in April 2023, partnerships between operators and sports clubs are subject to a Code of Conduct.
Prior to the paper’s publication, a majority of Premier League clubs agreed that they would call it quits on having front-of-shirt betting partners from the 2026/26 season. Clubs will still be able to have pitchside LED advertising, sleeve sponsors, training-wear partners, and social media partners.
This left gambling reform advocates wanting more. Many, including a large number of MPs, wanted to see betting deals with sports clubs – not just those in the top flight of English football – brought to an end.
As the 2026/27 season approaches, however, clubs may be starting to see the value of betting partnerships even more. This is especially the case as they prepare for more scrutiny of their finances under a newly created regulator.
Under the new football regulator, all 116 ‘regulated clubs’ – consisting of those from the Premier League to the fifth tier National League – will need to prove ‘appropriate financial resources’ to hold a football licence.
Clubs will need to have ‘sufficient resources’ to meet financial commitments and ride out challenges like relegation, or withdrawal of owner funding.
Could loss of a major commercial revenue stream in a betting sponsor be a financial shock? For some clubs the blow would be significant, and they would need to fill the gap quickly, perhaps with a trading or crypto partner.
Betting partnerships understandably raise a lot of questions around suitability and social responsibility, and it’s undeniable that a large section of the fan base wants them gone. It’s also undeniable that they offer a very lucrative source of income for clubs.
This is especially the case of lower league clubs which don’t have the privilege of Premier League TV viewership, ticket sales for 60,000 seat stadiums, and global merchandise sales to boot.
A lot of attention lately has focused on the presence of unlicensed betting firms in English football.
A DCMS consultation launched earlier this month is examining whether or not unlicensed firms should be banned from sponsoring in English sport, even if these firms have taken efforts to prevent, or least appear to prevent, UK customers from accessing their platforms.
A question we need to ask is, why do clubs want these partners?
The answer is clear – money, and in an era of competing with clubs with big budget owners, high-cost players, the Profit and Sustainability Rule (PSR), and a now new regulator taking a look at their finances, money is more important than ever.
Due to political meandering the remit of the IFR, remains unsettled for what was a body charged with bringing a balance to the pyramid of English football.
The IFR is currently engaging in a seven-week consultation around its financial requirements, inviting clubs, fans, competition owners and others interested in these parties’ to participate.
Whether or not betting partnerships get raised, either in a negative light by supporters’ groups or a positive one by club finance teams, is anyone’s guess, but it is always a possibility.