In the midst of allegations against the owner of Premier League club Brighton and Hove Albion, who has some big stakes in the gambling industry, SBC News takes a look at the legal situation around betting syndicates and the British sector’s public image problem.
Brighton and Hove Albion FC issued a statement late last week denying reports that club owner, Tony Bloom, may have placed bets on matches involving the team as part of a wider multi-million gambling syndicate.
The Guardian’s reporting and Bloom’s subsequent statement has shone a light on the role betting syndicates play in the UK’s gambling ecosystem. The publicity around it, however, continues the never ending scrutiny on UK gambling, regardless of political outcomes.
Bloom, Brighton and betting
According to The Guardian, Bloom’s gambling syndicate uses individuals known as ‘frontmen’ to place bets on sporting events, which may include wagers on clubs that he owns or has stakes in.
The outlet further claimed that Bloom’s syndicate, the Starlizard Betting Syndicate, used frontmen including ‘footballers, sportsmen and businessmen’ to place bets, as laid out in a court filing as part of a legal dispute between Bloom and a former associate, Ryan Dudfield.
Bloom has never hidden that he made his fortune via professional gambling on sports and poker as well as other betting-related interests the sale of Premierbet. He became Chairman of Brighton in 2009, when the club was competing in League One and nearing bankruptcy.
During his tenure, Bloom deliberately distanced Brighton from any direct gambling sponsorships, all while steering the club up the football pyramid and overhauling its management and scouting structures – transforming Albion into one of English football’s standout success stories.
The businessman has issued a strong denial to The Guardian’s reports: “Following an inaccurate and misleading report in The Guardian earlier this evening, I can categorically assure our supporters that I have not placed bets on any Brighton & Hove Albion matches since becoming the owner of the club in 2009,” Bloom’s statement, shared on the club website, read.
“In 2014, in addition to new rules on betting, The FA introduced a policy with quite onerous provisions for owners of football clubs with interests in betting. These provisions allow certain football club owners, including me, to continue to bet on football under strict conditions.
“In particular, the policy prevents me from betting on any match or competition that Brighton & Hove Albion is involved in. Since 2014, I have always fully complied with these conditions, and all of my bets on football are audited by one of the world’s leading accounting firms on an annual basis to ensure full compliance with The FA’s policy.”
FA policy strictly prohibits active footballers from placing bets on the game, a policy which has been breached on a number of occasions in recent years, leading to some substantial suspensions.
Some of the more notable incidents include Brentford and later England forward Ivan Toney, Newcastle United midfielder Sandro Tonali, and Nottingham Forest defender Harry Toffolo, who now plays for MLS club Charlotte FC. The situation around owners participating in betting, as referenced by Bloom, is not as stringent, however.
An FA statement issued to SBC Media’s sports business outlet, Insider Sport, read: “The purpose of the policy is to allow the relevant betting company to carry out its ordinary business activities without placing the Participant in breach of our betting rules.
“The policy does not permit Participants to place bets on matches or competitions involving their own clubs. The relevant stakeholders in the game, including the leagues, are aware of the policy.”
The Guardian has since reported that Brighton has banned its photographers and reporters from attending the club’s games, starting with its clash against West Ham United on Sunday 7 December.
Brighton has not officially confirmed whether this is the case, but Bloom’s statement revealed that his lawyers have been in contact with the newspaper.
“Lawyers acting on my behalf have this evening directly contacted The Guardian to make my position on this entirely false allegation very clear. Separately, our club is in direct contact with both The Football Association and The Premier League regarding this matter,” he said.
What’s the situation with syndicates?
Betting syndicates are nothing new, and are far from illegal. The groups have existed for as long as betting as a business and pastime has existed in the UK, dating back to horseracing and, in line with the surge in popularity of football betting over many decades, the nation’s most popular sport as well.
Placing bets on behalf of others is a complicated licensing matter, however, and in the retail side of things is often frowned upon. Anyone who has worked in a betting shop will be well aware that customers placing bets on behalf of others is strongly discouraged in that space.
To gain some more ideas about the legal and licensing picture around betting syndicates and the practice of placing bets on another’s behalf, SBC reached out to Poppleston Allen, a law firm with a specialist gaming licensing department.
“Firstly, allegations of ‘placing bets on behalf of others’ could be a licence activity under the Gambling Act 2005 requiring a betting intermediary operating licence from the Gambling Commission,” said Nick Arron, Lead Partner with Poppleston Allen’s gambling team.
“This licence allows you to bring two or more betting parties together online in circumstances where you do not have liability for their bets. A remote betting intermediary is also commonly known as a betting exchange, but could also catch circumstances where people place bets on another’s behalf.”
Syndicates are a legal highly regulated space, especially when involving high profile individuals with substantial professional and interest in gambling and sports. Organisations as diverse as the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC), the FA and FIFA have rules around this that syndicates have to follow.
Potentially throwing a spanner in the works here is cryptocurrency and blockchain. The UK has been moving forward with crypto regulations, chiefly focusing on the fintech and technology sectors, but crypto gambling is largely unregulated.
However, crypto betting undoubtedly still occurs in the UK. For syndicates that may be moving round the rules, using blockchain to facilitate betting payments is an effective way to avoid regulatory supervision.
According to the co-founder of online crypto casino Rollibit, who goes by the name ‘Razer’ on X, accounts linked to Bloom’s syndicate have ‘ravaged through the crypto casino space over the past few years’.
Sigh. I understand you’re just trying to impress your boss and get a huge $100 payout for a sensationalist post about Rollbit, but let me address both cases you reference.
1) This is a case against accounts which are part of Tony Bloom’s sports betting syndicate. These have…
— Razer (@Razer_Rollbit) November 14, 2025
The Gambling Commission has slowly but surely been working its way towards a clearer regulatory picture around crypto-assets in betting over the years, having taken note of the rapid growth of crypto gambling over the past decade.
Getting a crypto gambling business off the ground in the UK – whether one which is funded via crypto-assets or accepts crypto-assets as a payment method – is not a clear cut process.
Poppleston Allen’s Arron summarised the situation around crypto gambling in the UK:
“Although in theory it could be possible for businesses holding operating licences to allow payment by crypto the requirements for a licensee to know their customer, their identity and the source of their funds, means that in reality it is almost impossible, for the Commission’s view blockchain technology and crypto-assets.
“The Commission have been circumspect in their approach to crypto and treat crypto as high risk. Betting companies, licensed here in Great Britain, must consider how they will receive sufficient information to satisfy the Commission’s regulatory requirements and undertake thorough risk assessments.”
Considerations include how the UKGC can adequately assess the source of funds, fluctuations between cryptocurrency values and fiat currency values and how this can affect deposit limits and AML triggers, scalability, cost of feeds, and the security of funds held.
“The exact risks depend on the implementation of the business model and the type of crypto-asset,” said Arron.
“The Commission needs to be satisfied that any licensee considering accepting such payment methods has considered and implemented steps to reduce any risk to the licensing objectives to the same level that we would expect from other payment methods.
“In reality this is practically impossible and defeats the use by customers of crypto.”
Crypto aside, the Guardian’s reporting around the allegations against Bloom come at a sensitive time for gambling. The Guardian is an outlet which has been particularly critical of gaming in recent years, particularly the industry’s relationship with sports.
Betting in the UK will become subject to some hefty new tax raises in 2026 and 2027, and the industry continues to face political and public criticism from MPs and other reform advocates who want to see another review of gambling legislation – the last one having only concluded in 2023, and its recommendations still being adopted.
Meanwhile, while not an illegal activity, betting syndicates still run the risk of running foul of a myriad of regulations and laws, and should proceed with caution…