Public health advocates have long sought to regulate bookmakers like tobacco companies. On September 17, the House of Lords Liaison Committee issued a follow-up report urging the government to prohibit gambling advertising "as soon as practicable."
This report also advised ministers to abandon their goal of expanding the licensed gambling industry, advocating for a return to the pre-2005 stance that gambling should be tolerated but not actively promoted. The committee states there is "no evidence for the safety of gambling advertising."
However, the gambling industry presents a contrasting viewpoint. Grainne Hurst, chief executive of the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC), described the report as "a deeply misguided report which risks weakening, rather than strengthening, consumer protection."
The report claims that between 1 million and 1.5 million adults in Great Britain engage in some form of problem gambling, according to estimates derived from the Gambling Commission’s Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB). This survey identifies 2.4% of adults scoring eight or more on the Problem Gambling Severity Index. Conversely, the NHS Health Survey for England in 2024 indicated a much lower rate of 0.7%, which suggests that approximately 350,000 adults could be affected.
Questioning the harm measure, Dan Waugh, a partner at Regulus Partners, pointed out that the GSGB typically reports higher rates than other official sources, including three NHS surveys and the commission's telephone survey conducted over nearly twenty years. He attributes this discrepancy to "topic salience," meaning those with a vested interest in gambling are more likely to participate in such surveys.
The low response rate of 18% to 19%, below the survey's set target of 22%, exacerbates concerns, according to Waugh. He highlighted an academic's warning in 2023 about the potential for over-reporting due to topic salience, a point brought to light only after a freedom of information request.
In defense of its methodology, the Gambling Commission insists the survey was "designed by experts, reviewed by experts and approved by experts," claiming respondents tend to be more truthful in the absence of an interviewer. While the report cites Patrick Sturgis from the London School of Economics for his support of the GSGB method, his own 2024 review urged caution regarding overstatement risks. The committee addresses the conflict but suggests older surveys may have underestimated the problem, asserting that it proceeds based on the GSGB’s accuracy despite acknowledging arising concerns.
Timing also surfaced as a significant issue. The committee asserted that voluntary measures have fallen short, despite the Premier League removing gambling sponsors from shirts only last August. Oral evidence for the report was gathered on June 17, before any sponsorship changes occurred, with the committee expressing "not confident" views on the ban. They relied on an estimate predicting only a 9% reduction in visible gambling advertising due to the ban. Waugh, who also appeared before the committee, argued that 9% still represents a meaningful cut.
The report suggests sponsorships are merely shifting, noting Manchester United's training kit deal with Betway. It also recommends replacing new initiatives, such as a wagering cap and opt-in rules for direct marketing, with outright bans.
A major contention involves the black market. Industry representatives argue that an advertising ban risks driving consumers toward illegal operators, a claim the committee dismissed as "insufficiently evidenced." Hurst cautioned that the report disregards the escalating threat posed by illegal gambling markets simply because it contradicts their conclusions.
In contrast, the report referenced a study from the UKRI Gambling Harms Research UK Evidence Centre, indicating that advertising restrictions did not encourage migration towards illegal operators. However, critics argue that this study’s design was not aimed explicitly at answering that question, as it involved interviews with 11 representatives of state monopoly operators predominantly from Europe, focusing on safer gambling, not illegal markets. As competition in monopolistic markets decreases, the risks tied to illegal operators grow.
Finland illustrates this dynamic. The state operator, Veikkaus, has expressed since 2022 that its monopoly should cease, with estimated figures revealing substantial online gambling spending outside the monopoly. "What is the point of the monopoly if this is the case?" asked Olli Sarekoski, Veikkaus's CEO.
Industry figures regarding illegal operators remain contentious, particularly the BGC’s projection that unlicensed firms will spend £845 million on advertising in Britain this year. The Gambling Commission counters this with its data showing no consistent growth in illegal market engagement.
Critics argue about the report's treatment of evidence, stating it misconstrues the government's request for causal proof of harm, labeling it a "fundamental misunderstanding" of social science. It asserts without clear evidence that licensed operators account for most of the advertising, while also highlighting an industry critique that categorizes displacement as a "misleading industry talking point."
Waugh remarked that it seems the Lords committee had predetermined findings regarding their inquiry and viewed obstacles to those conclusions, such as data reliability or increased criminality, as challenges to be dismissed rather than properly addressed. He noted the report’s aspirations concerning enforcement actions against the black market, indicating a lack of understanding of the practical difficulties involved.
Hurst pointed to Italy, which enacted a virtual ban on gambling advertising yet still contends with a significant black market. She further referenced the Netherlands, where the regulatory body has cautioned against an outright ban while noting only about half of gambling expenditures go to licensed entities.
The committee acknowledged that remaining advertising in Italy often results from licensed entities leveraging loopholes through alternative brands. Hurst warned that a blanket ban could eliminate the competitive advantages associated with licensed and regulated operators.
The inquiry, chaired by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede with members from the initial 2020 inquiry, held just one evidence session and accepted written submissions from a selective range of participants. Interests among members balanced differently: Lord Smith of Hindhead heads the Association of Conservative Clubs, where the clubs host gaming machines and bingo, while Lord Foster of Bath, the acting chair of the former committee, disclosed that his reform work received backing from a consultancy funded by Derek Webb, a supporter of the Coalition to End Gambling Ads and the Campaign for Fairer Gambling. The coalition’s director, Will Prochaska, was a key witness, and both he and Lord Foster serve on the board of Action on Gambling.
When asked about how they considered the implications of the shirt sponsorship ban, the evidence from monopolies, and debates surrounding the GSGB, a Lords spokesperson mentioned that "a wide range of arguments" could be found reflected in the report. The government now has two months to formulate a response.
