West Ham United has announced a new one-year, £12 million shirt sponsorship deal with Irish gambling firm BoyleSports, replacing its decade-long partnership
West Ham United has announced a new one-year, £12 million shirt sponsorship deal with Irish gambling firm BoyleSports, replacing its decade-long partnership with Betway. This move comes as the Premier League prepares for an impending ban on front-of-shirt gambling sponsorships, set to take effect from the 2026/27 season, and coincides with an ongoing betting scandal involving midfielder Lucas Paquetá.
The agreement with BoyleSports, initially reported by iGaming Times (originally Mail Sport), positions West Ham to maximise its betting revenue during the transitional period before the new regulations are implemented. From the 2026/27 season onwards, Premier League clubs will be prohibited from displaying gambling brands on their matchday shirts, a voluntary ban agreed upon in 2023 with the aim of reducing the visibility of gambling advertising. Last season, 11 top-flight clubs featured betting sponsors. While West Ham appears to be capitalising on sponsorship value during this final window, anti-gambling campaigners have voiced disagreement, suggesting that clubs are prioritising commercial gain over the interests of their fans.
The BoyleSports deal is particularly notable given its timing, coinciding with the conclusion of a three-week Football Association (FA) hearing into the case of Lucas Paquetá. The Brazilian international midfielder faces serious charges of intentionally receiving yellow cards in four matches during the 2022-23 season, allegedly to influence betting markets.
Ironically, it was West Ham’s former sponsor, Betway, that first flagged suspicious betting patterns linked to Paquetá Island near Rio de Janeiro, where friends and family allegedly placed bets ranging from $10 to $500 per yellow card. The FA is reportedly seeking a lifetime ban for the midfielder, with a verdict expected before the 2025/26 season begins, as reported by iGaming Times (originally Sky Sports).
West Ham United maintains that the change in sponsorship was “a commercial decision unrelated to ongoing disciplinary matters.” However, critics argue that the timing of this new deal undermines football’s broader attempts to distance itself from gambling controversies. They contend that while players like Paquetá face severe penalties, clubs continue to profit from the very industry at the heart of these issues.
The Premier League’s upcoming restrictions will necessitate that clubs seek alternative revenue streams to offset the loss of lucrative front-of-shirt gambling sponsorships. Analysis by The Sponsor, as reported by iGaming Times, predicts that front-of-shirt sponsorship values could drop by as much as 38 percent post-2026, with smaller clubs like AFC Bournemouth and Wolverhampton Wanderers potentially losing over half their sponsorship income.
Although clubs may explore alternative advertising avenues such as sleeve sponsorships or pitch-side LED advertisements, these alternatives typically generate 30-50 percent less revenue than a prime front-of-shirt deal. West Ham’s latest move reflects a broader pattern observed across the Premier League; since the impending ban was announced in 2023, at least eight clubs have signed or extended gambling partnerships, seeking to maximise exposure during this final window for top-tier branding.
However, as teams brace for the impending shift, the ethical debate surrounding football’s relationship with gambling remains prominent. Critics of the BoyleSports deal argue it highlights an uneasy tension between football’s commercial drive and its regulatory responsibilities. With Lucas Paquetá’s future uncertain and gambling brands still visible on kits, the sport continues to walk a fine line between profit and public accountability. West Ham fans can expect to see BoyleSports logos on their team’s shirts next season, marking a final gambling-branded kit before the Premier League’s new era begins. It appears that this is not the end of gambling sponsorship in football, but rather the beginning of a more creative and competitive “arms race” for brand visibility within evolving regulations.
