Tonali bet on football, including Milan: He faces a one-year ban

La Gazzetta dello Sport report that Sandro Tonali has confirmed he bet on football matches, including those featuring AC Milan. The midfielder is one of three high profile names involved in the betting scandal, along with Nicolo Fagioli and Nicolo Zaniolo.

Juve’s Fagioli was handed a seven-month ban yesterday, having admitted to placing bets on illegal gambling platforms, but never having gambled on Juventus matches.

La Gazzetta write a lengthy article this morning concerning the outcome of Tonali’s meeting with the public prosecutor yesterday afternoon:

“Sandro Tonali is repentant and has already begun to make his contribution to the investigation into the betting case. He said so yesterday at the Turin Public Prosecutor’s Office, in an interrogation that lasted almost three hours, but he had also declared it last Sunday when he was heard for the first time by the Federal Prosecutor’s Office. Giuseppe Chinè (FIGC prosecutor) met him at a secret location and he told the whole truth. So the former AC Milan player self-reported to the sports justice body and certainly admitted that he had also bet on football-otherwise under what is the Code of Sports Justice there would be no violation-but he would also have confessed to making bets on AC Milan. And here the issue is different and definitely more delicate.

“Betting on one’s own team is particularly risky because it could constitute the crime of illicit sports betting. The article of the Code that regulates it, number 30, is clear and speaks of “performing, by any means, acts aimed at altering the course or result of a match or competition.” From what emerges, however, this would not be the case for Tonali. The player now at Newcastle would in fact have bet on Milan winning or at any rate on other results with him absent. In short, his bets would not have in any way affected his performance on the field, so no sports offence. At the moment, the violation charged against Tonali therefore remains within the enclosure of Article 24 of the Code of Sports Justice, the one that punishes players who bet on football (minimum penalty three years), but it is clear that having bet on Milan constitutes an aggravating circumstance.

“The midfielder would like to follow the path taken by Fagioli, with a plea bargain in a short time frame (even less than a month), but there are clearly differences. The first is that if the bets on the Rossoneri were confirmed, the initial sanction of the Prosecutor’s Office would necessarily be more than three years. Verisimilarly it could be three and a half or four, a penalty automatically halved with the predeferral plea bargain. Thus, since the boy has already shown cooperation, he could enjoy some mitigating factors like Fagioli. Hypothesizing the final sanction today is difficult, but one can think of 12 months of disqualification on the field and 6 of alternative prescriptions like the Juventus player, given that Tonali has also claimed to be suffering from ludopathy. Certainly it will be crucial that the version of the former Rossoneri player provided to Chinè coincides perfectly with what will emerge from the records of the Turin prosecutor’s office, who seized his phone and tablet Thursday at Coverciano. If something does not match, things would change, and depending on the findings, the penalty could increase even by a lot.

“The timeframe for the plea bargain-if there are no surprises-could be quite short, given as well that the Federation has already defined for Fagioli the path of alternative punishments: therapy to defeat ludopathy and a series of meetings decided by the Federation to make these guys examples in a positive way, to show especially young people that gambling can be the ruin of a career and more.”

Nicolò Fagioli banned for seven months over gambling offence

The Juventus midfielder Nicolò Fagioli has been handed a seven-month ban as part of a settlement with the Italian football federation (FIGC) after breaching rules surrounding betting on matches, the governing body said on Tuesday.

Fagioli was banned for 12 months, of which five months were suspended, and fined €12,500 (£10,843). He has also agreed to a treatment programme for gambling problems. The 22-year-old has been placed under investigation by prosecutors in Turin for allegedly betting on illegal websites.

Under FIGC rules, a player found to have bet on matches could have been banned for at least three years but Fagioli has had more lenient treatment after admitting his offence to the authorities.

As part of his punishment, he will have to speak of his experiences in at least 10 sessions with amateur sporting organisations and with groups helping gambling addicts.

Fagioli has made one appearance for Italy but is not in the squad for the current round of international games.

Sandro Tonali and Nicolò Zaniolo left the national team’s headquarters last week after they were also told they were involved in an investigation by prosecutors.

Tonali’s agent, Beppe Riso, said on Tuesday that his client had a gambling addiction and was sad and in shock at how matters had unfolded. Riso said the 23-year-old was determined to overcome the problem and thanked Newcastle for their support. He said Tonali could feature against Crystal Palace on Saturday.

Juventus' Nicolo Fagioli faces illegal betting investigation

Juventus midfielder Nicolo Fagioli is under investigation for alleged illegal betting activities, a prosecutor said on Wednesday, confirming earlier press reports.

La Stampa daily said the 22-year-old is involved in a criminal probe targeting users of illegal online betting platforms, along with other unnamed suspects.

"I confirm the news of the investigation," Turin Chief Prosecutor Enrica Gabetta said in an emailed statement, without elaborating.

The newspaper did not say what kind of betting Fagioli was involved in. Italian football authorities ban players from betting on matches but not from other types of gambling.

The prosecutor's office of the Italian football federation (FIGC) is also looking into Fagioli's case, a source close to the matter said, confirming another part of the La Stampa report.

A player found to have bet on football matches risks being disqualified for at least three years and fined at least €25,000 ($26,517.50) under the FIGC's code of conduct.

Juventus declined to comment on the affair. Attempts to reach Fagioli via social media messages were not immediately successful.

Fagioli has played in six of Juve's eight Serie A matches this season. Last November he made his debut for Italy, coming on as a substitute in a 3-1 away friendly win against Albania.

Asian-facing gambling operator 6686, the sleeve sponsor of Wolverhampton Wanderers and official betting partner of Wolfsburg, Lazio and AS Monaco, is illegally streaming live games from the Premier League, the Bundesliga, Serie A, Ligue 1 and a number of other competitions on its Chinese language website

Do you want to watch the best that European club football has to offer for free? This is easy. All it takes is to switch on a VPN (Virtual Private Network), choose Hong Kong as a location and head for 6686.com. Three clicks later, it’s all there.

On the right of the screen, a blue “play” button icon indicates which games can be watched live on the bookmaker’s website. It is almost all of them. The pictures originate from legitimate broadcasters such as Telemundo, Setanta, Arena Sport and others, but also directly, it seems, from the raw international video feeds which the Premier League, the Bundesliga and other European leagues provide to their rights-holders, and which must have been captured straight from the satellites beaming the precious video content to legal broadcasters.

This would explain the startling quality and clarity of the picture, a world away from the shaky illegal streams which many frustrated or impoverished sports fans share online. There is hardly any buffering. When there is, the 6686.com logo spins for just a few seconds before the image stabilises and offers the kind of viewing comfort which could be expected from a legitimate broadcaster such as Sky Sports, Canal + or TNT. The delay with the live action is no greater than what is usually experienced when using the online versions of those legal platforms.

The problem is that 6686.com has not acquired the streaming rights of any of the competitions it shows on its Chinese website. It has not paid any compensation to the networks who spent tens, sometimes hundreds of millions for the privilege of showing live action from the world’s top leagues to their subscribers. 6686’s video offering is 100 percent illegal. It is piracy on a mind-boggling scale, as it is not just the top five European leagues which can be watched on 6686.com, as long as the site is accessed from outside the United Kingdom.

In the course of a single afternoon, we were able to access on 6686.com live streams of games played in the Premier League, both divisions of the Bundesliga, La Liga, Serie A, Ligue 1, the Dutch Eredivisie, the Belgian Jupiler League, the Portuguese Primeira Liga, the EFL Championship, the Czech First League, the Turkish SüperLig, the Polish Ekstraklasa, the Swiss Super League, the Saudi Pro League, the Austrian Bundesliga and even the Ukrainian second division and the Indian Super League. It would be much quicker, in fact, to list the competitions which are not streamed live on the bookmaker’s website. Moreover, what goes for football goes for other sports, such as baseball, tennis or basketball. The scale of the operation beggars belief.

No registration process or password are required to access the streams. No subscription is necessary. No fee is charged to the viewers. No advertising pop-ups suddenly appear on the screen. Full-screen vision is available for all streams. Were it legitimate, this would be the go-to website for all football fans; but legitimate it is not.

Despite its official partnerships with well-known European clubs and the licence granted by the UK Gambling Commission via White Label company TGP Europe, 6686.com is one of a myriad illegal Asian gambling operators which cater almost exclusively to customers from Far Eastern countries where gambling on sports is illegal and may even lead to criminal prosecution.

Until now, the Premier League has chosen to turn a blind eye to the proliferation of partnership and sponsorship deals between its clubs and ‘questionable’ Asian-facing gambling operators. But the Premier League is also known to be much more reactive when it comes to breaches of copyright and piracy of its precious product. In May of this year, following an investigation launched by the Premier League, five British individuals were prosecuted and sentenced to a total of thirty years and seven months in jail for running three pirate streaming operations from the UK. Yet what kind of action the world’s most popular league could take in this case is unclear, as the opacity surrounding 6686.com is complete.

No-one – and this includes 6686’s partners Wolves, Wolfsburg, Lazio and Monaco, as well as the UK Gambling Commission and the Premier League itself – is aware of the identity of the operator’s ultimate beneficial owners, and the bewildering multiplicity of mirror websites it uses to trawl for punters makes it almost impossible to shut them all down.

To complicate things even further, though TGP Europe has registered the domain name 6686.co.uk with the UK Gambling Commission, it is 6686sports.co.uk which the Isle of Man-based company lists as its partner on its own website, where it is described as “the official sleeve sponsor and Asian betting partner of Wolverhampton Wanderers”. So 6686sports.co.uk is 6686.com? It is indeed.

Further proof of it is provided by using a UK internet network with no VPN and, instead of typing 6686.com, using the different URL which the Asian-facing website redirects to by default. Normally, with no VPN, an error message would appear on the screen, telling the UK visitor that the website they’re trying to reach is geo-blocked; but not this time. This visitor is automatically redirected to 6686sports.co.uk. The loop is complete.

It should be added that 6686sports.co.uk is not a going concern. The web analysis tool SimilarWeb shows that their website received a mere 2,000 visits in the month of August, fewer than most genuine gambling operators would get in a matter of minutes. It is a means to acquire legitimacy by association, thanks to the stamp of approval given by a UK government agency. The real action is elsewhere, with 6686.com, the brand which was also advertised in the stadiums of Leicester City and Nottingham Forest in England last season.

As to 6686.co.uk, the only brand name actually registered by TGP Europe with the UKGC, it does not even exist as a functioning website. Typing it in any browser leads to the domain name broker GoDaddy, where it is suggested that 6686.co.uk can be purchased via an agent who will only charge a little over 50 pounds for their work.

There is no indication that the 6686.com which pirates football streams from all over the world is a different entity from the 6686.com which paid millions to become the official partner of Wolves, Monaco, Lazio and Wolfsburg. A rogue operator is not, somehow, impersonating the real bookmaker. The truth is that a ‘grey market’ – in plain English, illegal – bookmaker which was deemed worthy of a UK licence and managed to become the “official Asian betting partner” of four famous European clubs has been and still is stealing the most valuable product which these clubs and their leagues have to offer: live footage of their matches.

FA accused of ‘double standard’ in allowing club owners to bet on football while banning players

The Football Association is facing claims of double standards after an investigation revealed that the owner of a Premier League club may have benefited from bets on the game placed in his own name.

The disclosures involve Matthew Benham, the owner of the Premier League club Brentford FC, whose star striker, Ivan Toney, is serving an eight-month suspension for breaking the FA’s strict gambling rules.

Benham is one of a select few multimillionaire club owners who enjoy an opaque arrangement with the FA that allows them to be involved in betting. There's evidence that appears to show that Benham has made money from bets on football placed in his own name, via a UK-based gambling syndicate called MSPP Admin. Benham said he abides by all FA betting rules.

The governing body prohibits anyone involved in football from betting on any match, anywhere in the world, under laws designed to protect the integrity of the sport, resulting in tough penalties for footballers, including the England striker Toney.

The FA is now facing calls to reveal the full terms of its deal with the owners, which has been in place for a decade. Other proprietors that the FA allows to run a betting business while owning a football club include the Coates family behind Bet365 and Stoke City, and the Brighton owner Tony Bloom. There is no suggestion that any of them have benefited from bets placed in their own name.

The association, which oversees all football in England, has consistently refused to give full details of exemptions given to some football club owners but has said that anyone with a “significant interest” in a football club must not be “directly involved” in activity such as setting odds or placing bets.

Information raises questions about the nature of Benham’s involvement in football bets.

Benham is the majority funder and beneficiary of MSPP Admin, a tiny, London-based company that bets in the UK and in Hong Kong, where it does so via private counterparties – people willing to take the other side of a bet.

Such syndicates pool money invested by multiple bettors and adopt a unified betting strategy to maximise returns. MSPP Admin is understood to have placed bets on behalf of Benham and other unnamed individuals.

The chair of the west London club, Cliff Crown, is listed as one of two co-owners of MSPP Admin, along with the former Brentford director and longtime Benham friend and business associate Philip Whall.

According to evidence, some of the wagers are placed in Benham’s own name.

Separate evidence shows that MSPP Admin placed frequent bets on football matches around the world in its own company name, some as recently as autumn 2022. None was on matches in the UK.

Typically, MSPP Admin bets via exchanges, companies that charge a fee to match someone placing a bet with someone else happy to take the other side of it.

The FA is understood to have made inquiries about whether Benham placed bets in his name within the UK. However, there is no suggestion that the syndicate has bet on Brentford, the Premier League or competitions in which the club is involved.

A spokesperson for Benham said: “Matthew Benham, alongside other club owners who have a financial interest in a betting company, is subject to an FA policy which, if abided by, ensures that their betting companies may continue to bet on football.

“In particular, those the policy applies to must not, among other things, have any direct involvement in setting odds or placing bets on football or pass on any inside information. This policy has been in place for almost a decade.

“Matthew fully complies with this FA policy. He abides by all its conditions and restrictions and is also subject to regular third-party audits to confirm compliance.”

The spokesperson did not respond to questions about whether Benham had profited from bets placed in his own name, nor how this would comply with the FA’s requirement on direct involvement.

The FA updated its betting rules in 2014 to strengthen a regime designed to prevent corruption and protect the integrity of the game. It drew up a policy specifically designed for gambling bosses who own football clubs but has repeatedly refused to publish this policy.

The FA has indicated that “stakeholders” such as leagues and club owners are the only people that need to see the whole document.

Clive Betts MP, who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on football, warned of a double standard in the betting rules and questioned the secrecy surrounding the policy.

“It seems contradictory and very unfair if footballers are being pursued, in many cases quite rightly, but owners who are in a more senior position get away with what appears to be similar activity,” he said. “Transparency is the essence of this. Stakeholders in football are the supporters and they need to know what’s going on.

“The FA has to come clean and tell us what the rules are. If people are complying with the rules, we need to see what the rules are that they’re complying with. I can’t begin to understand why the FA don’t release it [the policy].”

Nick De Marco, a leading sports lawyer who represented Toney over the Brentford striker’s own gambling ban, called on the FA to be transparent about its position on football bosses’ betting.

“It’s been reported for some years now that the FA has an ‘unpublished policy’ exempting certain individuals from their betting rules,” he said.

“I believe it is difficult to justify keeping such a policy secret, assuming it exists, when the FA regularly charges and bans players and others in football for betting in the name of ‘integrity’. Transparency and integrity would suggest that any such policy ought to be published.”

In 2018, the FA lost a battle against the then Bournemouth owner Maxim Demin, after attempting to charge him with multiple counts of breaching betting rules.

Demin’s lawyers successfully argued that he was not subject to the rules because he did not have a role in the club’s day-to-day operations.

However, the FA is understood to have strengthened its guidelines since then to ensure that club owners are covered, even if they do not have an operational role.

Brentford FC’s website describes Benham as having a “significant interest” in the club, the same designation that the FA says governs its betting rules.

A spokesperson for the FA said: “We have a stringent policy in place for any participant who has a significant interest in both a football club and a betting company, which has been approved by the Football Regulatory Authority.

“The policy includes a set of strict conditions and reporting obligations, and expressly prohibits these individuals from having any personal involvement in, or passing on of information related to, the setting of odds, the determining of markets, or the selection or placing of individual bets on football.

“We will always take the appropriate disciplinary action if these rules are breached.”

Football and betting have developed ever closer ties over the past two decades, fuelled by the legalisation of gambling advertising, the rise of the smartphone and the increase in the number of televised games.

That has allowed the game to attract a flood of cash from sponsors, as well as investment from entrepreneurs who have profited from the explosion in online gambling.

Benham previously worked for Tony Bloom, before carving his own path in the world of data-based sports gambling.

The pair reportedly fell out but have each ended up steering their clubs to the Premier League after years in the wilderness, using a data-led approach that is now being adopted by more established and wealthier clubs.

Benham’s business acumen in the statistics and gambling world has allowed him to amass a personal fortune believed to exceed £150m. He is the founder and majority owner of Smartodds, which uses cutting-edge statistical models that clients can use to inform sports betting.

One such client is MSPP Admin, the syndicate of which Benham is the majority member.

Wealth acquired chiefly through betting allowed Benham to buy Brentford in 2012 and fund the club’s rise to the Premier League in 2021, often deploying sophisticated data analysis to steal a march on richer clubs.

In 2014, he also became the majority shareholder of the Danish Superliga side FC Midtjylland.

West Ham's own sponsor Betway reported suspicious activity that prompted FA probe into Lucas Paqueta after spike in bets from near Rio de Janeiro on him to be booked against Aston Villa in March

West Ham's shirt sponsor Betway were responsible for reporting the suspicious betting patterns that caused the collapse of Lucas Paqueta's proposed £85million transfer to Manchester City this week amidst an FA probe into alleged breaches of gambling rules. 

Betway's integrity alert system was triggered by a series of bets they received on the Brazilian midfield player to be booked in West Ham's Premier League match against Aston Villa on 12 March, which they immediately reported to the International Betting Integrity Association (IBIA), a global group of hundreds of bookmakers responsible for policing irregular betting in the gambling industry.

Paqueta was shown a yellow card with 14 minutes remaining of the 1-1 draw at the London Stadium, leaving Betway liable to pay out the winning bets. After receiving the integrity alert the IBIA reported the matter to FIFA who then passed it on the FA, who have begun their own investigation.

The suspicious bets in question are understood to been traced to Paqueta Island in Guanabara Bay, near Rio de Janeiro, which is where Paqueta grew up. Whilst their main offices are in London, Malta, Guernsey and Cape Town, Betway have a market presence in Brazil, where they take a large number of bets on football and Esports in particular.

Although the precise figures remain unknown the volume of money staked on Paqueta to be booked against Aston Villa appears to have been significant as his price to receive a yellow card had collapsed to odds-on before kick-off, despite the fact that he had only been booked three times previously by that stage of the season. The 25-year-old was subsequently booked by Chris Kavanagh for a late challenge on John McGinn, the only booking of the game.

Betway's involvement in reporting the bets may be a source of embarrassment at West Ham and the Premier League, who last season introduced a voluntary ban on gambling sponsorship on the front of shirts that will begin at the start of the 2026/27 campaign. The online gambling company have sponsored West Ham since 2015 in one of the biggest shirt deals in the Premier League outside the Big Six that is due to come to an end in 2025.

The £10million-a-year deal has not been without controversy however, with Betway fined £400,000 by the Gambling Commission last season for inadvertently advertising their products on the Young Hammers page of the club's website in a breach of industry rules.

Betway were also fined £11.6m in March for failing to carry out sufficient affordability checks on their so-called VIP customers who often gamble heavily, although that was not related to West Ham.

News Corp’s Troubled Venture into the Betting Industry

News Corp’s into online betting has been a rollercoaster ride of triumphs and hurdles. Spearheaded by the determined Lachlan Murdoch, the media giant made a bold entrance into the market with its platform, Betr. However, recent reports have revealed significant financial setbacks, leaving many questioning the resilience of Lachlan’s betting empire.

The introduction of Fox Bet marked a pivotal moment in News Corp’s venture into the betting industry. Lachlan struck a deal with The Stars Group (TSG) to establish Fox Bet as a joint venture, leveraging the influence of Fox Sports coverage to create a robust sports betting platform. Lachlan’s personal investment in the project underscored his steadfast belief in its potential. Nevertheless, critics wasted no time pointing out some glaring flaws in Fox Bet’s technology that could potentially impede its growth prospects.

News Corp’s betting aspirations have been plagued by financial woes, with an estimated pre-tax loss of approximately $70 million in Australian dollars. To compound matters, News Corp reported a $US33 million equity loss from affiliates in the December half-year, followed by an additional $US10 million loss in the March quarter. These staggering figures vividly illustrate the formidable challenges faced by the company in the fiercely competitive betting market.

While Fox Bet struggled to gain traction, its formidable competitor, FanDuel, swooped in and claimed a dominant share of the US online betting market. FanDuel’s meteoric rise prompted Flutter, the parent company of FanDuel, to acquire The Stars Group, effectively gaining control of Fox Bet. Adding fuel to the fire, Flutter now possesses a valid 10-year option to purchase 18.6% of FanDuel, intensifying the rivalry between the two platforms.

With only limited availability in four states, Fox Bet has failed to make a significant impact, capturing less than 1% of the US market. This uncertain future raises doubts about whether Fox Bet can weather the storm or face imminent cancellation. Lachlan Murdoch now finds himself at a crossroads, grappling with tough decisions about the future of News Corp’s betting empire.

To compound News Corp’s troubles, the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services dealt another blow by rejecting Fox’s claim, suggesting that Flutter may have favored FanDuel over Fox Bet. This decision further complicates the already strained dynamics between the two platforms, potentially influencing their future relationship.

Amidst this tumultuous landscape, a sliding option deal emerged, valuing FanDuel at a staggering $US22 billion. This valuation serves as a stark reminder of the immense profitability that a successful betting platform can bring. However, the burning question remains: can Fox Bet seize this opportunity to reverse its fortunes?

Ivan Toney bet on his own team to lose 13 times as FA reveal reasons behind ban

The Football Association have revealed that Ivan Toney was diagnosed as a gambling addict who bet on his own side to lose 13 times.

Toney has been banned from all football-related activities for eight months after pleading guilty to over 200 betting charges.

Following confirmation of his ban, the FA have published their written reasons behind the ban in which they noted that the one-time England international did not appear in any of the games he placed a bet against his own team, including 11 while playing for Newcastle United.

A statement from the governing body on Friday said: “There were 13 bets on Mr Toney’s own team to lose in 7 different matches between 22 August 2017 and 3 March 2018. 

“Mr Toney did not play in any of those matches where he placed bets against his loan club as he was not in the match squad or against his parent club as he was on loan.

“Of the 13 bets 11 were against Newcastle whilst Mr Toney was on loan at another club. The other 2 bets related to a game between Wigan v Aston Villa whilst the player was on loan at Wigan but he was not part of the squad.

“A further 15 of the 126 bets or instructions to bet were placed by Mr Toney to score in 9 different matches all of which he played in.”

The FA initially wanted the 27-year-old to be banned for 15 months but opted to reduce the suspension after Toney had pleaded guilty and was formally diagnosed with a gambling addiction.

They added: “The commission finds that a significant reduction should be made to reflect the diagnosed gambling addiction identified by [psychiatrist] Dr [Philip] Hopley. The lack of control the player has in respect of gambling is clearly a reflection of his diagnosed gambling addiction.”

Brentford have accepted the charges and offered their support to the striker. They said that they would “be doing everything possible to provide support to Ivan and his family to deal with the issues raised in this case” and “look forward to welcoming Ivan back to training in September.”

Paddy Power Betfair charged £490,000 for self-exclusion marketing

The licence holder of Paddy Power Betfair has been charged £490,000 by the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) in the regulator’s second enforcement action of this week.

PPB Counterparty Services Limited, which trades as the Paddy Power and Betfair sports betting brands, was the subject of UKGC enforcement for sending promotional push notifications to devices linked with self-excluded customers.

Customers either directly self-excluded with PPB or via the GAMSTOP sector-wide exclusion scheme were sent offers for enhanced odds on a Premier League match on 21 November 2021.

Kay Roberts, UKGC Executive Director of Operations, said: “Although there is no evidence the marketing was intentional, nor that all the people with apps saw the notification or that self-excluded customers were allowed to gamble, we take such breaches seriously.

“We would advise all operators to learn from the operator’s failures and ensure their systems are robust enough to always prevent self-excluded customers from being sent promotional material.”

In its assessment, the Commission maintained that PPB’s actions reached regulatory rules requiring operators to take ‘all reasonable steps’ to prevent marketing material being sent to self-excluded customers.

Additionally, firms are required to take steps to remove the names and details of self-excluded customers from marketing databases within two days of receiving a completed self-exclusion notification.

The UKGC’s initial decision against Malta-based PPB was initially made on 9 May, but the company launched an appeal against the penalty. However, the operator and regulator later agreed to dispose of the appeal.

As well as accepting the £490,000 charge, PPB has also agreed to a third party audit of its marketing communication processes and procedures, at the FLutter Entertainment-held company’s own expense.

However, the UKGC has acknowledged that no complaints were received from customers regarding the aforementioned promotions. 

Additionally, the UKGC has noted that it was ‘proactively notified’ of the incident after it occured by the operator, which subsequently took ‘immediate remedial action’ and was compliant throughout the investigation.

In the aftermath of the White Paper publication, UKGC executives have made it clear that the regulator will continue to ensure that non-compliant operators face repercussions for licence breaches.

Italy and Spain have banned betting sponsorship – what can the Premier League learn?

After two decades of financial support from the gambling industry, Premier League clubs are preparing to cut off a hand that has so often fed them.

This summer is expected to see a vote passed by the 20 clubs to prohibit betting companies from appearing on the front of shirts once a three-year phasing-out period has concluded in 2026.

Sleeve sponsorships are still expected to be permitted under revised laws but this is the Premier League’s best attempt to appease the UK government before a long-awaited review of gambling laws coming later this month. Compromise, it has concluded, is key.

That means eight of the current 20 top-flight clubs — Bournemouth, Brentford, Everton, Fulham, Leeds United, Newcastle United, Southampton and West Ham United — must look elsewhere for a primary commercial partner for the 2026-27 season. Aston Villa, too, will join the search after teaming up with online casino BK8 for next term. The length of that new deal, coincidentally, was three years.

Premier League clubs’ commercial teams will now have to diversify in pursuit of their biggest sponsorship deals. The traditional ‘Big Six’ have found other sectors offering vast financial support, but many of the mid-to-lower-end clubs will have to rethink their strategy.

Fulham, for example, have had a betting sponsor for seven of the past 10 seasons, a run that has included five brands. Include Betfair, which became the first betting company to appear on a Premier League club shirt in 2002-03, and they have teamed up with half a dozen. They, though, are only one of 25 Premier League clubs to have had a shirt sponsored by a company from the gambling industry.

There are concerns the visibility of betting brands — and the means for cashing in — will remain in an arrangement that falls short of the blanket ban sought by campaigners. Heavy advertising, it has been made clear, routinely exposes vulnerable people to a harmful and addictive product. But English football is not alone in facing up to commercial restrictions.

In the coming weeks, the long-awaited white paper is expected to outline new restrictions on gambling adverts and the Premier League hopes its proposals will be enough to avert the outright ban that has been forced upon other major European leagues. The EFL, too, hopes it can continue with partnerships that include all three leagues being sponsored by Skybet.

Serie A clubs have not been permitted to carry betting brands since the Italian government tightened laws in 2019. Those in La Liga found the same limitations come their way ahead of the 2021-22 season.

In Belgium, there are protests against change but their government has spoken. Justice minister Vincent Van Quickenborne last month lamented “the tsunami of gambling advertising” when announcing a national crackdown that will see sporting clubs curbed from 2025.

There is nothing close to uniformity across Europe. French clubs remain free to carry the names of betting partners on the front of their shirts. Montpellier (Partouche), Troyes and Strasbourg (both Winamax) have visible backing from the gambling industry this season, and Paris Saint-Germain agreed to make Parions Sport a “premium partner” in a three-year deal struck last summer.

The French FA (FFF), meanwhile, is midway through a five-year deal with Betclic, the French betting group. Kylian Mbappe has taken a stand against that branding, opting out of a photoshoot to promote the company last year.

In the Netherlands, too, its FA (KNVB) has made clear it opposes the proposed ban on gambling advertising slated to come in from January 2025. The KNVB, with the support of clubs, says it goes “too far” by halting revenues estimated to be worth between €40million and €70million (£35m and £61m) a year. AZ Alkmaar, Volendam and Fortuna Sittard all have shirt sponsorships with betting firms.

Disruption to the marketplace is unavoidable but, in retaining reduced advertising opportunities, Premier League clubs know it could have been worse.

Counterparts in Italy and Spain will attest to that.

Serie A has long pushed back against the ban on gambling-related advertising introduced by Giuseppe Conte’s government at the end of 2018. Italy’s top-flight spoke of its “extreme worry” at the measures, highlighting the potential for millions of euros to be lost.

As of December 31, 2018, Serie A clubs had 15 sponsorship deals with betting companies, amounting to two per cent of the league’s total arrangements. Among those were Roma’s reported €15.5million (£13.6m, $17m) deal with Betway for the sponsorship of training kit and Lazio’s front-of-shirt deal with Marathonbet. Torino and Chievo also had back-of-shirt sponsors.

The Italian Football Association (IFF) lobbied for the ban to be suspended once the COVID-19 pandemic hit, arguing clubs had lost out on an estimated €100million in potential commercial revenue, but met resistance from the state.

Serie A has always argued a ban on gambling-related ads would handicap its clubs against others in Europe, particularly in the Premier League, but since 2021, the same restrictions have befallen clubs in Spain.

Alberto Garzon, minister of consumer affairs, wrote to all clubs in October 2020 to say the promotion of gambling firms would be prohibited from the start of the next season. La Liga president Javier Tebas forecast it would cost clubs €90million and the limited timeframe for legislation to come into force ensured eight clubs were left without a sponsor when the 2021-22 campaign began.

Premier League clubs will face neither that hurried search for new partners nor the outright ban that has impacted clubs in Italy and Spain. They are not permitted sleeve sponsors or allowed to show the branding of betting websites on pitchside advertising boards to a domestic audience.

There are loopholes still being exploited, though. The technology used in both Serie A and La Liga allows broadcasters to cater output to individual territories by superimposing advertising on top of pitchside boards. That allows an audience in the Far East, for example, to still see betting ads when watching games in Serie A. Such tech has not yet been introduced by the Premier League.

Italian clubs such as Inter Milan have had to find non-betting sponsors  

Italian clubs are also free to team up with betting partners. Juventus have struck agreements with Betera, Parimatch and 10Bet since the gambling ad ban was introduced four years ago and only last month signed up with Khelraja and Ekings, the Asian gambling platforms. Each announcement ended with the disclaimer: “As per Italian law, partnership not performed in Italy”.

Real Madrid are in the same boat. They list Asian firm Kok Sports and African group SportyBet among their regional sponsors, as well as the Spanish-based Codere, which operates across Europe and Latin America.

That inability to strike shirt sponsorship deals with gambling companies, though, has altered the landscape and hastened football’s potentially short-lived relationship with the cryptocurrency and blockchain sector.

Spanish clubs Valencia (fan-token Socios) and Cadiz (Bitci) swapped betting brands for crypto in 2021-22 only to quickly sever ties and find new partners for this season. Atletico Madrid have run into their own problems with crypto platform WhaleFin, the outgoing sleeve sponsor of Chelsea, which cancelled a €40million-per-season deal in February.

Premier League clubs at least have time on their side to fill any void that comes from a gambling shirt sponsorship ban.

The expectation is that this will likely bring a short-term financial hit as the market readjusts to life without the inflated sums offered by betting companies, but, unlike in Italy and Spain, the Premier League’s global appeal will help limit the damage.

“It would be disruptive,” says Dan Haddad, head of commercial strategy at Octagon, a sports, music and entertainment agency. “Broadly what you might see is that it corrects itself a little bit. If this halfway measure happens and they have to do without front-of-shirt, it might be that other entry points, like sleeve sponsorships and ad boards, become more valuable. You might see a drop in front-of-shirt sponsorships, for example, but the sleeve sponsorship might double.”

The mid-to-lower tier of Premier League clubs is traditionally the most fertile ground for gambling-related sponsors. Those deals tend to be valued between £6million and £10million per season, with the betting companies often the ones offering the most.

Everton are sponsored by ‘crypto betting’ company Stake.com

It would be disingenuous to say that income will be lost given there will be brands willing to fill the void, but the disappearance of gambling companies from the marketplace removes what has become an easy and lucrative option.

Has there been too great a dependency? “It was where the largest revenue opportunity was for many Premier League clubs,” argues Haddad. “It would be hindsight to say they became too dependent on it because what was the other option?

“A lot of Premier League clubs just maximised the opportunity while it existed. I don’t think any of those clubs will suffer from being involved with a betting brand. These clubs have just chased revenue as a means of coping with a high cost base.

“It’ll be disruptive in terms of front-of-shirt value. It’s tricky. You look at Nottingham Forest as a club that has held out for a certain value and it’s gone to show this year that it’s not the easiest thing to sell. They weren’t willing to take a hit on their perception of value.”

It is worth retaining context. If a lower-end Premier League club can command £8million a season from a gambling firm in return for carrying their branding on shirts, that might roughly amount to five per cent of an overall £160million turnover. Replace it with a sponsorship deal worth £6million and the losses are negligible even before there is the chance to recoup the shortfall with a sleeve sponsorship.

Richard Masters, the Premier League’s chief executive, once said his clubs were “not sniffy” about teaming up with the gambling industry but as recently as last summer could foresee what was coming.

“The clubs will adapt, they always do,” he said. “If the future means having no gambling sponsors on shirts, we’ll find a way of dealing with that.”

The Premier League’s strength can avert financial black holes, but a hit is coming.