Entain: 11 of 20 Premier League Clubs Now Carry an Unlicensed Gambling Sponsor

Stella David wants the government's promised ban brought in immediately, "even if that means clubs ordering new kit mid-season", and extended to online advertising, where 22% of unlicensed users first found their operator against 13% through sponsorship. The count is up from eight clubs last season, and the newest deal was signed after the consultation closed.

• Entain research says 11 of the 20 Premier League clubs now have an unlicensed gambling operator as a sponsor in some capacity, up from an estimated eight last season, NEXT.io and SBC News report
• CEO Stella David: "Premier League clubs that have struck new deals with unlicensed gambling operators knew the risks. The Government made clear in February that it would bring in a ban and it should do so immediately: even if that means clubs ordering new kit mid-season. Inconvenience is not an excuse for inaction"
• Deals cited include Sunderland and Curaçao-licensed Shuffle, signed last week after the DCMS consultation closed, Everton and Stake, Fulham and SBOTOP, Chelsea and 8XBet, and Tottenham Hotspur and VSBet, on assets from sleeves and training kit to stadium branding and perimeter boards seen on Match of the Day
• Entain says over 80% of consumers cannot confidently tell a licensed operator from an unlicensed one, so sponsorship confers "unearned credibility" on brands outside GAMSTOP, deposit limits and affordability checks
• It wants the ban to cover online and digital advertising too, citing the government's own consultation evidence that 22% of unlicensed-operator users first encountered them through social media or social advertising against 13% through sponsorship; a physical-only ban "risks simply shifting the problem online"
• The intervention lands two days after a Lords committee called a comprehensive ban the most effective advertising policy, a position that would reach Entain's own brands

Eight to Eleven in a Season

The government said in February that it would legislate to ban sponsorship of British sport by gambling operators that hold no Gambling Commission licence, and ran a consultation on the scope. Between that announcement and this season's kick-off, the number of top-flight clubs with such a sponsor rose, on Entain's count, from eight to eleven. Sunderland's Shuffle deal, signed days after the consultation closed on 12 September, is the example David chose, and her line about "new kit mid-season" is aimed at the clubs' anticipated objection that a ban cannot take effect until contracts and shirts run out.

The operators concerned are, in the main, Asian-facing brands licensed in Curaçao, the Isle of Man or the Philippines, with ownership structures that the clubs do not publish and, in several cases, no product a British customer can lawfully use. Their value to the clubs is the broadcast reach of the Premier League into Asia; their value to the brands is the credibility of a Premier League shirt in markets where a licence from anyone is a marketing asset. Entain's argument is that the same credibility works on British viewers, most of whom cannot tell the difference.

The Online Point Is the New Part

Entain's call for a ban is not new; the company made the same demand in July. What is new is the push to extend it to digital advertising, and the numbers it uses come from the government's consultation rather than Entain's own research. If 22% of people who use unlicensed operators found them through social media and 13% through sponsorship, a ban confined to shirts and hoardings addresses the smaller channel and leaves the larger one, and David's warning is that the traffic will move rather than stop.

That is a harder ask of DCMS, because policing social advertising by unlicensed operators means policing the platforms, and the government's February commitment was specific to sport. It is also an ask that brings the licensed industry's own advertising into view, which is where the Lords committee went on Wednesday.

Entain Is Asking for a Ban on Its Competitors and Getting Asked About Itself

The licensed industry's position, that unlicensed sponsors should go and licensed ones should stay, has a logic: one pays tax, funds RET, honours GAMSTOP and answers to the Commission, the other does not. But every intervention that says football sponsorship confers credibility on gambling brands strengthens the case of those who want it gone entirely, and the Lords committee's report this week said so. Entain has to argue that sponsorship is dangerous when Shuffle does it and acceptable when Ladbrokes does, and the 80% figure it cites, that consumers cannot tell them apart, cuts both ways.

Mid-Season Is the Test of Whether DCMS Means It

The government's choice is timing. A ban from the 2027-28 season lets existing contracts expire and asks nothing of the clubs; a ban with immediate effect voids deals signed in full knowledge of the consultation. Sunderland's contract is the case that decides which one the government picks, because it was signed after the consultation closed, and a ban that grandfathers it rewards exactly the conduct the policy exists to stop.

Eleven Clubs Is a Majority

When eight clubs had unlicensed sponsors the Premier League could treat it as a minority practice. At eleven it is the league's default, and the league's own voluntary withdrawal of front-of-shirt gambling sponsors from this season, which applies to licensed and unlicensed brands alike, has been answered by a move to the sleeve and the training ground. Entain's count is a number the league did not want published, and it is the number DCMS will now be asked about.

Eight clubs last season, eleven this one, and a consultation that closed six days before the count. The ban has a deadline now, whether or not the government sets one.