Getty Images
When the Premier League first announced its voluntary ban on front-of-shirt betting sponsors three years ago, it was designed to give clubs plenty of time to prepare for the transition and potentially make alternative arrangements.
However, it hasn’t stopped English soccer’s top-flight clubs cashing in lucrative offers from betting brands to maximise revenue while they still can, with gambling companies still prepared to pay a premium for the media exposure that comes with appearing on a Premier League shirt.
With 11 Premier League clubs currently carrying gambling sponsors – compared to eight when the ban was announced – the new rules will reportedly leave a collective revenue hole of UK£80 million (US$107.9 million) to fill over the summer before they come into effect next season.
The biggest impact is likely to be felt outside of the so-called ‘Big Six’, whose international reach has attracted global brands willing to spend upwards of UK£40 million (US$53.9 million) a year. Beyond that, clubs under pressure to comply with financial regulations have become more dependent on the fees paid by betting brands to remain competitive.
According to The Sponsor, gambling firms have been spending as much as 38 per cent above the fair market rate for their front-of-shirt sponsorships. The rush to source replacements has therefore created a buyer’s market that is expected to reset what mid-table and lower-tier teams generate from their principal sponsorship asset, potentially widening the gap between the elite clubs and the rest.
While the focus for now has been on the financial hit to clubs, Mike Haywood, vice president at sports marketing agency Octagon, sees the transition in a more positive light. He says the reset is “needed” and believes the fact that the ban was self-imposed and was a show of confidence in the Premier League’s commercial trajectory.
“Some of the clubs know it’s a messy challenge now in the short term,” he says. “But it is short-term pain for long-term gain.”
‘Upselling existing partners is very, very hard’
At the time of writing, nine of the 11 sides with betting sponsors are yet to announce new deals. Chelsea, who have kicked off the last three seasons without a main shirt sponsor, and Newcastle United also have partnerships expiring with non-gambling firms after this season.
With clubs now in sales mode, Adam Britton, the chief creative officer at Manchester-based marketing agency Trunk, believes the coming months will separate which clubs “have brilliant commercial teams and which ones don’t”.
Clubs could find that non-betting companies are not prepared to match the value of their current deal, and it may even lead to some starting next season without a shirt sponsor if they aren’t willing to budge on their asking price.
Britton also suggests some teams could be waiting until the end of the campaign to announce new deals, either to honour existing relationships or because of uncertainty over which competitions they will be playing in next season, which would impact the value of their front-of-shirt sponsorship.
Bournemouth and Brentford have already sourced replacements for their betting sponsors by expanding existing deals (Image credit: Getty Images)
Some have already moved to secure replacements by expanding existing partnerships. Bournemouth, for example, broadened their agreement with stadium naming rights sponsor Vitality back in December, while Brentford announced this week that training wear and recruitment partner Indeed has upgraded to shirt sponsor from next season.
While upselling would be an efficient way to find a replacement, scaling those relationships is rarely straightforward.
“Upselling existing partners is more cost-effective and beneficial for everyone, but generally speaking it’s very, very hard,” says Haywood, pointing to the steep jump in investment required to move between sponsorship tiers.
For an elite club, he notes than moving from a mid-tier package to the sleeve – let alone the shirtfront – would represent a financial leap of more than UK£10 million (US$13.5 million).
“I think those big investment platforms have to be done on a new partner basis,” Haywood adds.
Who replaces betting?
When the Premier League kicked off its first season in 1992/93, not a single club had a betting firm as its front-of-shirt sponsor. Instead, teams were advertising everything from beer and construction companies to technology firms and clothing brands.
In fact, it wasn’t until Fulham struck a deal with Betfair ten years later that a gambling company first appeared on the front of a Premier League shirt, opening the floodgates to an industry that has since become ubiquitous across English soccer. However, that presence was coming under increasing public and government scrutiny before the competition announced its voluntary ban in April 2023.
Attention has now turned to which sectors might fill the gap. Early signs suggest financial services brands are among the most active, with CMC Markets reportedly in talks with both Everton and Fulham over deals worth up to UK£50 million (US$67.4 million) over three years, while Bournemouth’s expanded deal with Vitality is already in place.
Beyond that, the opportunity for more affordable deals is expected to bring a broader mix of categories to the table. Artificial intelligence (AI) companies have been tipped as potential entrants, alongside growing interest from B2B brands.
“We’re seeing a big shift in the B2B space,” says Britton. “They’re starting to realise that sport can be used as part of a wider marketing tool to bring through emotion in their marketing campaigns.
“When you sponsor a football club, you’re not just buying into what’s happening this season. You’re not just buying the front-of-shirt space and putting your logo there.
“Brands are starting to realise that you’re also buying into the legacy and the community that comes with it. So B2B brands are now realising it’s a great way to align those things with their values and build them into their wider business goals and strategies.”
Haywood also expects consumer technology, challenger brands and pharmaceuticals companies to be part of the conversation.
“We’re seeing a ton of inbound requests around the [pharma] category,” he says. “If you look at the Mounjaros of the world, Ozempic, ones that are moving from high-net worth individuals with disposable income to mass market reach, I think you can naturally see a smart investment made in one of these categories.”
Chelsea have started the last three seasons without a shirt sponsor but agreed a short-term deal with AI firm IFS in February (Image credit: Getty Images)
One criticism of betting partnerships has been that gambling brands without a UK presence have done little to engage local fanbases, treating front-of-shirt sponsorship simply as a media buy. A wider variety of categories could therefore lead to more eye-catching activations and above-the-line advertising from new entrants, creating additional marketing benefits for clubs.
Haywood uses the example of a fashion or luxury brand leveraging the front-of-shirt opportunity not simply for mass awareness, but also to launch new clothing lines alongside a team’s kit manufacturer.
That said, he cautions that it is “not a fair fight”, pointing out that not all teams are equally equipped to go after those opportunities. The top sides typically have larger commercial departments capable of crafting longer-term propositions, whereas others may lack the same resources.
“My concern would be the mid to lower-tier teams who are a bit lighter in that department,” Haywood says. “They are pounding the pavements right now and looking at it very traditionally, so looking at logistics, looking at manufacturing, electronics and FMCG, looking at the white goods companies.
“I would like to see a couple of them approach it like a big club would and think about it in terms of that longer-term marketing play.”
What does the future look like?
While clubs are on the hunt for replacements, the removal of betting brands from shirtfronts does not mean their spending will disappear entirely. Gambling companies are still allowed to advertise in other areas and could redirect their investment towards the shirt sleeve or LED inventory, driving the value of those assets in the process.
That would help offset some of the immediate financial concerns, though the government is also considering blocking unlicensed gambling companies – some of which have partnerships with Premier League clubs – from sponsoring UK sports teams altogether.
For Britton, Premier League clubs can still be optimistic about the future based on how a category ban played out in another sport.
“The best way to look at it for me is the F1 tobacco ban,” he says. “Since that, commercials have skyrocketed and they’ve diversified the types of industries that they partner with. You’re spreading risk across lots of different assets rather than 60 per cent of your revenue coming from one.”
In that sense, the front-of-shirt betting ban might not be so much a loss of value as it is a rebalancing of it. In the short term, clubs will be required to adapt to a more competitive market and might be forced to accept cut-price deals. But in the long term, the shift could reduce reliance on a single category and inspire more creative partnerships.
Whether the reset proves to be a crisis or opportunity could therefore depend on how the clubs respond.
“I think it’s a good reset in the mid to long term,” Haywood reiterates. “There will certainly be some challenges in the short term, but it will find its way into clubs in other areas.
“And I think the commercial teams that get very creative with some of the assets and some of the ways that they demonstrate the value for a front-of-shirt investment versus a mid-tier partner is where the power is going to be.”
Sponsorship remains the most powerful commercial force in sport, yet as investments soar, the ROI gap widens. This April, SportsPro London will deliver frameworks for proving impact beyond logo placement. Learn more here.