Public health advocates have long pushed for the same restrictions on bookmakers as those imposed on tobacco companies. On September 17, the House of Lords Liaison Committee released a follow-up report recommending that the government implement a ban on gambling advertising "as soon as practicable."
The report also advised ministers to drop their goal of expanding the licensed gambling industry, reverting to a pre-2005 perspective that gambling should be tolerated but not promoted. It claims there is "no evidence for the safety of gambling advertising."
The gambling industry has a decidedly different view. 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."
Starting with statistics, the report asserts that between 1 million and 1.5 million adults in Great Britain exhibit signs of problem gambling. This figure comes from the Gambling Commission's Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB), which indicates that 2.4% of adults scored eight or higher on the Problem Gambling Severity Index. The report also notes that the NHS Health Survey for England recorded a much lower problem gambling rate of 0.7% in 2024, translating to approximately 350,000 individuals.
Discrepancies in harm measurement
Dan Waugh, a partner at consultancy Regulus Partners, highlighted that the GSGB's problem gambling rate surpasses those of all other official sources over nearly two decades, including three NHS surveys and the commission's own telephone survey. He attributed this anomaly to a phenomenon known as topic salience—the tendency for individuals with a vested interest in a topic to participate in related surveys. Waugh contended that the GSGB, as a gambling survey, likely "over-recruits gamblers and more engaged gamblers."
The survey's 18%-19% response rate, below the target of 22%, exacerbates the issue, according to Waugh. He referenced academic Heather Wardle's warning to the commission in 2023 about the potential for over-reporting attributable to topic salience bias, a concern that emerged through a freedom of information request.
Contrasting viewpoints
The Gaming Commission defends the GSGB, asserting it was "designed by experts, reviewed by experts and approved by experts," claiming participants are more candid when surveyed without an interviewer present. The report mentions Patrick Sturgis from the London School of Economics, who supports this methodology, yet his review for the commission in 2024 advised caution regarding the risk of overstatement. The committee identifies this controversy and suggests older surveys, including those underpinning its own 2020 report, may have underestimated the issue.
Waugh criticizes the report, stating it acknowledges concerns about the GSGB but largely proceeds with the assumption that its results are accurate.
Too soon to assess effectiveness?
Timing has emerged as another focal point of disagreement. The committee claims voluntary measures "have not gone far enough," despite significant changes such as the Premier League removing gambling sponsors from jersey fronts, which only commenced in August.
The committee heard oral evidence on June 17, before the new shirt policy took effect, yet expressed uncertainty about the effectiveness of the ban. Citing an academic estimate, it concluded that the ban would reduce visible gambling marketing by only around 9%. Waugh, who also provided oral evidence, argued that even a 9% reduction is still a notable achievement. The report includes his response in a brief paragraph.
The committee highlights Manchester United's reported sponsorship deal with Betway as evidence that betting partnerships are merely shifting rather than disappearing entirely. It similarly recommends outright bans on newly introduced measures such as a wagering cap and marketing opt-in rules that have not yet undergone evaluation.
Disagreement over the black market
The industry's primary concern regarding an advertising ban is the potential boost it could provide to illegal operators. The committee notes this perspective lacks sufficient evidence. Hurst countered by emphasizing, "Most concerning is the report’s willingness to dismiss the rapidly growing threat from the criminal gambling market simply because it does not fit its conclusions."
The committee's counter-evidence comes from a study conducted by Philip Newall and others, which suggests that advertising restrictions have not led consumers to illegal operators. However, critics argue the study was not structured to address this question and primarily focused on safer gambling practices among state operators.
The state monopoly perspective
The study's authors engaged with 11 professionals in safer gambling roles from ten state-owned operators across Europe in 2024; seven were based in Europe. The findings were not designed to explore the illegal gambling market specifically. In fact, as European online monopolies decline, the case in Finland exemplifies concerns regarding state monopolies. Veikkaus, Finland's state operator, has lobbied for the end of its monopoly, with estimates suggesting a significant amount of Finnish online gambling spending occurs outside regulated channels.
Olli Sarekoski, CEO of Veikkaus, remarked to Lottery Daily that the viability of the monopoly is questionable if substantial gambling occurs through unregulated means. Finland will open its online market to licensed competitors next July, presenting an argument focused on market structure rather than on advertising.
Challenges in estimating the black market
Discrepancies also arise regarding the industry's own claims about the black market. The BGC projected that unlicensed operators would spend £845 million on advertising in the UK this year, yet the Gambling Commission states there has been no sustained increase in engagement with illegal markets. Critics highlight the report's approach to evidence, arguing that the committee's insistence on causal proof of harm reflects a "fundamental misunderstanding" of social science.
The committee does state that it "does not doubt" that licensed operators account for most advertising volume, though it acknowledges earlier that it lacked clear evidence either way. It emphasizes Newall's characterization of "displacement" as an "industry talking point" and reiterates a model suggesting a 10% decrease in gambling spending could result in significant economic benefits and job creation.
Waugh concluded, stating, "The overall impression is that the Lords committee decided at the outset what they wanted their inquiry to find and that any impediments to this—such as issues of data reliability or the threat of increased criminality—were arguments to be overcome."
Enforcement challenges
Waugh argues that the report aspires to enforce actions against the black market without appreciating the complexities involved. Hurst pointed out examples like Italy, which enacted a near-total advertising ban years ago but still grapples with a considerable illegal market. In the Netherlands, regulators have cautioned against a blanket ban amid reports that only half of gambling spending goes to licensed operators.
The committee mentions that much of the advertising in Italy appears to come from licensed firms exploiting loopholes through "alibi" brands. Hurst cautioned that a comprehensive ban could eliminate the competitive benefits of being licensed and regulated.
A limited inquiry
The committee, led by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and including four original members from the 2020 inquiry, conducted a single evidence session and sought written testimonies from what it characterized as a "small, balanced selection" of participants. Declarations of interest among members highlight potential biases; for example, Lord Smith of Hindhead chairs the Association of Conservative Clubs, which operates gaming machines and bingo, while Lord Foster of Bath, acting chair of the prior committee, noted he receives consultancy support from Derek Webb, who also funds campaigns against gambling advertising.
The coalition's director, Will Prochaska, was a prominent witness; both he and Lord Foster serve on the board of Action on Gambling. When asked how the committee weighed various perspectives such as the shirt ban and the GSGB dispute, a spokesperson stated a "wide range of arguments" had been included in the report.
The government is expected to respond within two months.
