Public health advocates have long desired to regulate bookmakers similarly to tobacco companies. On September 17, the House of Lords Liaison Committee released a report urging the government to implement a ban on gambling advertising "as soon as practicable." The report also suggested that ministers should abandon their plan to expand the licensed gambling industry and revert to the pre-2005 perspective, where gambling is tolerated but not promoted. It states there is "no evidence for the safety of gambling advertising."
However, the gambling industry has a different take. Grainne Hurst, the chief executive of the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC), criticized the report as "a deeply misguided document that threatens to weaken rather than enhance consumer protection."
The report begins with alarming figures, estimating that between 1 million and 1.5 million adults in Great Britain engage in problem gambling. This estimate is derived from the Gambling Commission’s Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB), which indicates that 2.4% of adults score eight or more on the Problem Gambling Severity Index. Conversely, the NHS Health Survey for England reports a much lower prevalence rate, approximately 0.7% in 2024, suggesting around 350,000 affected individuals.
Disputes arise over the measurement of harm. Dan Waugh, a partner at consultancy Regulus Partners, notes that the GSGB presents higher estimates than other official sources have reported over nearly two decades, including three NHS studies and the commission's own telephone survey. Waugh attributes this discrepancy to "topic salience," where individuals interested in gambling are more likely to participate in a survey about it, possibly inflating the results. He adds that a response rate of 18-19%, below the survey's target of 22%, exacerbates the issue. Heather Wardle, an academic, alerted the commission in 2023 that this bias could lead to over-reporting, a concern that surfaced through a freedom of information request.
While the commission stands by its methodology as robust, asserting respondents are more truthful without interviewers present, it acknowledges criticisms raised by Patrick Sturgis of the London School of Economics. Although he supports the survey's design, his 2024 review cautions that it might overstate the problem.
Timing is also a contentious element. The report takes a hard stance, claiming that voluntary measures have been insufficient. Yet significant changes, such as the Premier League's decision to remove gambling sponsors from the front of team shirts, only started in August. The committee heard oral evidence on June 17, before any shirt sponsorship had been altered. It expressed a lack of confidence in the effectiveness of this ban, estimating it would only reduce visible gambling marketing by around 9%. Waugh, who provided evidence to the committee, countered, arguing that a 9% drop is still meaningful, although the report mentioned his stance briefly.
Citing Manchester United's reported training kit deal with Betway, the committee argued that sponsorship is shifting but not vanishing. It proposed that a wagering cap initiated in January and direct marketing opt-in rules should be replaced with outright bans, despite these measures still being evaluated.
The industry’s chief concern regarding an advertising ban is its potential to drive consumers to illegal operators. The committee deemed this perspective as "insufficiently evidenced," prompting Hurst to assert that it is troubling for the report to disregard the increasing threat from the unregulated gambling market simply because it does not align with its findings.
The committee cites research from the UKRI Gambling Harms Research UK Evidence Centre, which includes a study by Philip Newall, Allegra Whybrow, and Jamie Torrance. The report details that interviews with representatives from state monopoly operators across Europe indicated that advertising restrictions did not lead consumers to illegal options. However, critics point out that the study was not aimed at answering this specific question, focusing instead on safer gambling practices from ten operators in Europe, with only five based in the UK.
The BGC's projection that unlicensed operators will spend £845 million on British advertising in 2024 is also debated, especially since the Gambling Commission reports no consistent growth in the illegal market. Critics highlight the report’s handling of evidence, arguing that it erroneously frames the government's demand for proof of causal harm as a misunderstanding of social science while simultaneously admitting a lack of clear evidence.
The report critiques the term "displacement" as a misleading industry narrative and references models suggesting that a 10% reduction in gambling expenditures could generate an economic boost of £1.25 billion and create 22,000 jobs. Waugh contends that the report appears to have predetermined its conclusions and treats opposing data as hurdles rather than legitimate concerns.
On enforcement, Waugh expresses that the report showcases an aspiration to curb the black market without acknowledging the real-world complexities of such actions. Hurst notes parallels with Italy, which implemented extensive advertising bans years ago but still grapples with a significant illegal gambling sector, and the Netherlands, where regulators discourage outright bans due to an estimated influx of spending away from licensed operators.
The committee acknowledges that in Italy, much of the existing advertising comes from licensed firms using "alibi" brands to sidestep restrictions rather than being a consequence of displacement. Hurst cautions that a total advertising prohibition could strip licensed operators of a key competitive advantage.
The committee, chaired by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, conducted a single evidence-session inquiry and gathered written submissions from a limited and supposedly balanced array of stakeholders. Members had conflicting interests; for instance, Lord Smith of Hindhead runs the Association of Conservative Clubs, which hosts gaming machines and bingo, while Lord Foster of Bath is funded by a consultancy tied to Derek Webb, a supporter of the Coalition to End Gambling Ads. Will Prochaska, the coalition's director and one of the main witnesses, is also affiliated with the charity Action on Gambling. When asked about their assessment of shirt sponsorship, monopoly evidence, and the GSGB evaluations, a spokesperson for the committee asserted a wide range of arguments had been considered in the report, directing inquiries to the pertinent sections.
The government now has two months to respond to the committee's findings.
