iGaming Expert Editor, Joe Streeter writes on the potential ban of unlicensed operators from sponsoring UK sports teams and whether this is the correct approach.
Rejuvenated by £26m worth of unprecedented funding in what was otherwise a budget filled with sorrow at the end of last year, UK gambling’s battle against the black market has intensified significantly in 2026.
As the battleground inflames, an effective and efficient strategy to wield the regulatory hammer and lay out the red tape is absolutely vital.
The latest measure has led to rare alignment between the industry and the government, as the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Lisa Nandy, proposed plans to ban unlicensed operators from sponsoring English sports clubs.
But, the question has to be asked as to whether this is an effective use of energy and restrictions – will it have a meaningful impact on the size of the black market?
Largely, the marketing presence of the unregulated sector is based in the Premier League, which is obviously unsurprising. It very much shifts the complexion of the argument for banning unlicensed sponsors, given the global appeal of the English top flight.
Entain’s Stella David described Bournemouth vs Sunderland as ‘the black market derby’ because both are sponsored by Asia-facing bookmakers that don’t hold a licence in the UK.
Both sponsors are unavailable to UK players and to claim that the value to W88 and BJ88 in sponsoring Sunderland and Bournemouth is to engage UK players is simply disingenuous.
The Premier League – even matches such as Bournemouth vs Sunderland – garners millions of views across Asia. For a bookmaker, such is the global appeal and exposure of the Premier League that having branding at the Vitality Stadium can bolster trust in Vietnam.
In Asia, the Premier League is boosted by local language coverage and is regarded by many as the marquee club competition.
Millions of fans watch the competition in Southeast Asia and the allure of attracting this region through the Premier League is not an avenue isolated to the gambling industry.
Manchester United recently announced a partnership with Tezos, a digital currency firm focused on the Asian market.
Liverpool has a front-of-shirt partnership with Standard Chartered, an international bank with major operations in India, Hong Kong and Singapore.
Providing the correct safeguards for UK players are in place, if other industries are allowed to utilise the global appeal of the Premier League, why shouldn’t gambling be the same?
The elephant in the room is that serious harm caused by unlicensed operators in the UK does not stem from the front of Premier League shirts, but on social media.
Non-Gamstop adverts penetrate social media platforms and can directly target the most vulnerable players.
Even TikTok streams show reckless play from influencers with large young followings, playing unlicensed crypto crash games. These campaigns are engaging and impactful, eclipsing any damage caused by a front-of-shirt asset.
If stakeholders are serious about curbing the black market, their priority should be the social platforms that allow unlicensed operators to operate unchecked, rather than targeting sponsorship assets. These platforms amplify harm directly to vulnerable audiences, yet act with little accountability – tackling them would have a far more meaningful impact.
This was essentially acknowledged by the UK Gambling Commission Executive Director Tim Miller, who, speaking at ICE, warned that anyone who has spent time on Meta’s platforms would more than likely have seen ads in their feed for illegal online casinos.
He was also critical of the approach of Meta to dealing with the ads, emphasising that “it could leave you with the impression they are quite happy to turn a blind eye and continue taking money from criminals and scammers until someone shouts about it”.
