On 23 February 2026, the UK Government announced plans to launch a Spring 2026 consultation on preventing gambling operators not licensed in Great Britain from entering into sponsorship arrangements with British sports organisations.

While much of the public discussion has focused on Premier League clubs, the proposal is framed as a sports sponsorship measure more generally and organisations across other sports should assume they will be within scope.

This sits alongside a wider enforcement push against the illegal (“black market”) gambling sector, including the Government’s Illegal Gambling Taskforce, launched last month, which is focused on disrupting illegal advertising routes and blocking payments to unlicensed sites.

The current position

A sports club is not automatically acting unlawfully simply because a sponsor’s brand is not GB-licensed. Despite the Gambling Commission repeatedly warning that promoting unlicensed operators can create criminal risk under the Gambling Act 2005, in practice, some sponsorships have been maintained on the basis that British consumers cannot access the gambling product (for example, via geo-blocking and other controls). The lack of action by the Gambling Commission, despite these sponsorship arrangements being ongoing, demonstrates that the current law doesn’t fully support the Gambling Commission’s position. The consultation signals a move towards tightening the legal framework in this area.

The Premier League’s voluntary move to remove front-of-shirt gambling sponsors by the end of the 2025/26 season already reduces one form of exposure, but it does not cover:

• sleeve and other kit placements;
• stadium and broadcast inventory;
• digital and social media promotions; or
• the wider football pyramid.

What may change: from “access” to “status”

The consultation signals a potential shift away from asking “can UK consumers use the site?” towards a simpler rule: “is the sponsor GB-licensed?”

If that becomes law, it will restrict clubs from taking sponsorship from non-GB-licensed operators even where access controls exist, because the regulatory concern is brand visibility and the credibility that comes with being associated with British sport.

One key uncertainty is how this would apply to “white label” arrangements, where an offshore-facing brand operates using the licence or platform of a GB-licensed operator rather than holding its own standalone GB licence. Until the consultation is published, it is unclear whether the restriction will target only brands with no GB licensing route at all or also tighten the rules around brands operating via intermediaries, though this could have unintended consequences for legitimate businesses operating in the UK market.

What this means for sports rights-holders in practice

A broader restriction in practice:

The stated policy aim is to close the current “loophole” where clubs can lawfully carry branding from non-GB-licensed operators provided the operator is not accessible to British consumers.

If licensing status becomes the gateway issue, it could affect a wide range of commercial rights beyond headline shirt deals, including kit placements, stadium and broadcast-facing inventory and digital activations. That increases the importance of careful diligence and robust regulatory change protections in both new and existing agreements.

Immediate contractual and commercial pressure:

Sponsorship deals are typically negotiated and contracted well in advance. Many rights-holders will be selling 2026/27 inventory while the consultation is live and before the legislative position is settled. That creates a real tension: parties may want multi-season certainty, but rights extending into 2027/28 could be curtailed by a ban.

Common practical consequences include:

• shorter deal terms (or more robust break rights);
• greater focus on change-in-law and regulatory termination provisions;
• clearer exit mechanics; and
• enhanced due diligence on ownership, licensing and how a brand is being marketed.

What this is likely to mean for sports clubs

1. More scrutiny of sponsors:

Clubs should expect deeper questions (from regulators, media and commercial partners) about:

• who ultimately owns or controls a betting brand;
• whether it is properly licensed for any UK-facing activity; and
• what measures genuinely prevent UK consumers accessing a non-GB product.

2. Contract terms will matter more than the headline fee:

Even before any law changes, clubs negotiating sponsorships, particularly with gambling partners, will want contracts that clearly address regulatory change. Common pressure points include:

• change in law termination rights (who can exit, when and at what cost);
• warranties on licensing status and ongoing compliance;
• information and audit rights so the club can verify what the sponsor is doing; and
• exit mechanics, including how quickly branding is removed.

3. Smaller clubs may be more exposed:

Top-flight clubs have more diversified sponsorship demand. Clubs lower down the pyramid may rely more heavily on gambling-linked money and may have fewer alternative sponsors ready to step in at short notice, so a blanket ban could have a disproportionate commercial impact on them.

What’s next?

The consultation expected in Spring 2026 should provide the first clear answers on the breadth of the proposed restriction - in particular, how widely “sponsorship arrangements” will be defined, whether structures involving intermediaries (including forms of white label) are within scope and whether existing agreements will benefit from any transitional period (and on what terms).

In the meantime, commercial teams face a practical timing issue. 2026/27 deals are being negotiated now, while the likely regulatory position for 2027/28 is still developing. That uncertainty makes it harder to price and structure multi-season partnerships and increases the need for clear change-in-law provisions and workable exit mechanics if the rules change mid-term. Whilst we would expect a grace period for existing arrangements when the ban comes into force, that is unlikely to last long, given the political and media pressure to prevent offshore operators accessing the UK sponsorship market.