Public health advocates have sought to regulate bookmakers similarly to tobacco firms for some time. On September 17, the House of Lords Liaison Committee released a report calling for the government to implement a ban on gambling advertisements "as soon as practicable." The report recommended that ministers abandon their goal of expanding the licensed gambling industry, suggesting a return to the pre-2005 stance that gambling should be tolerated but not actively promoted. The committee stated that there is "no evidence for the safety of gambling advertising."
However, the industry disagrees. Grainne Hurst, CEO of the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC), described the report as "a deeply misguided document that threatens to weaken, rather than enhance, consumer protection."
The report's first factual assertion claims that between one million and 1.5 million adults in Great Britain engage in what can be classified as problem gambling. This estimate is derived from the Gambling Commission’s Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB), where 2.4% of adults scored eight or higher on the Problem Gambling Severity Index. In contrast, the NHS Health Survey for England found only a 0.7% rate in 2024, suggesting roughly 350,000 individuals might be affected.
Dan Waugh, a partner at consultancy Regulus Partners, pointed out that the GSGB yields higher problem gambling rates than all other official sources over nearly two decades, including three NHS surveys and the Commission's own telephone survey.
Waugh attributes this discrepancy to a phenomenon known as topic salience, wherein individuals with a vested interest in a particular topic are more likely to participate. He argued that the GSGB, being a gambling survey, tends to engage more frequent and invested gamblers. Additionally, the survey's response rate fell short of the 22% target, achieving only 18%-19%. Academic Heather Wardle cautioned the Commission in 2023 that such bias likely led to inflated figures, a concern that surfaced only after a freedom of information request revealed her warning.
In defense of the survey, the Commission maintains that it was "designed by experts, reviewed by experts and approved by experts," claiming that anonymity leads to more truthful responses. The report cites Patrick Sturgis from the London School of Economics, who supported the methodology, yet Sturgis noted in his 2024 review that there is a risk of overstatement. The committee presents the controversy, insinuating that older surveys, including those informing its 2020 report, may have underestimated true rates.
Waugh believes that while the report acknowledges the issues surrounding the GSGB, it ultimately relies on its accuracy.
The timing of the committee's recommendations is also under scrutiny. The report concludes that existing voluntary measures have fallen short, despite significant changes such as the Premier League's recent removal of gambling sponsors from jersey fronts, a decision finalized only in August. The committee gathered oral evidence on June 17, prior to any visible changes in promotions, and expressed skepticism regarding the new ban's effectiveness. It estimates that such a measure will only reduce visible gambling marketing by about 9%, although Waugh argues that this percentage still constitutes a considerable reduction. His input received little attention in the report, being summarized in just one paragraph.
The report references Manchester United's training kit deal with Betway as an indication that sponsorship is merely being displaced rather than eliminated. Similarly, the committee advocates for outright bans to replace the wagering cap introduced in January and the forthcoming opt-in rules for direct marketing, which have yet to be evaluated.
Central to the industry's opposition to the advertising ban is the fear that it would allow illicit operators to fill the void. The committee dismissed this concern as "insufficiently evidenced." Hurst criticized the committee's dismissal of the burgeoning threat from the criminal gambling market, arguing that it ignores substantial evidence to the contrary.
The committee's principle counterargument stems from a study conducted by Philip Newall, Allegra Whybrow, and Jamie Torrance, as reported by the UKRI Gambling Harms Research UK Evidence Centre. Interviews with representatives of state monopoly operators indicated that restrictions on advertising did not prompt consumer migration toward illegal operators, according to the committee.
Critics contend that this study was not intended to assess that specific question. It consisted of interviews with only 11 individuals in safer gambling roles at ten state-owned operators, predominantly European. The focus was on safer gambling practices rather than illegal markets. These dynamics highlight a concern, particularly in Finland, where state operator Veikkaus argues that its monopoly is outdated, as approximately half of online gambling expenditures now occur outside the state framework. Veikkaus's CEO, Olli Sarekoski, underscored the issue, stating, "What is the point of the monopoly if this is the case?" In July, Finland will open its online market to licensed competitors, illustrating a shift in market structure that contrasts with the committee's findings.
Debate persists over the industry's own data, particularly the BGC's forecast that unlicensed operators will spend £845 million on British advertising in 2023. The Gambling Commission's data suggests no sustained increase in illegal market engagement, which brings more uncertainty to the committee's position. Critics point out inconsistencies, arguing that the report’s claim that the government’s demand for proof of harm is a "fundamental misunderstanding" of social science clashes with its earlier admissions of a lack of clear evidence.
The report highlights Newall’s assertion that discussions about displacement constitute misleading rhetoric from the industry, while also referencing a claim from the Coalition to End Gambling Ads that reducing gambling spending by 10% would inject £1.25 billion into the economy and create 22,000 jobs.
Waugh remarked that the impression given by the Lords committee suggests that it predetermined the desired findings of its inquiry, treating opposing viewpoints—such as concerns around data accuracy and the risk of increased criminal activity—as obstacles to be overcome rather than issues requiring genuine analysis.
He criticized the report for articulating a commitment to enforcing laws against illegal markets without recognizing the practical challenges involved. Hurst pointed to Italy's experience, where a comprehensive gambling advertising ban years ago has resulted in a considerable illegal market, mirroring the situation in the Netherlands where regulators have warned against total bans while noting that only about half of gambling spending goes through licensed operators.
The committee offered partial clarification regarding Italy’s situation, noting that many of the remaining advertisements were from licensed firms using "alibi" brands to exploit loopholes, rather than outright displacing black market operators. Hurst insisted that a blanket ban would strip licensed and regulated operators of a significant competitive edge.
The committee, which included Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and four members from the original 2020 investigation, conducted a single evidence session and gathered written submissions from what it deemed a "small, balanced selection" of stakeholders.
However, individual members' interests present a dual perspective. Lord Smith of Hindhead is connected to the Association of Conservative Clubs, which operates gaming machines and bingo. Lord Foster of Bath, who previously chaired the committee, disclosed that his reform initiatives are supported by a consultancy funded by Derek Webb, who also backs the Campaign for Fairer Gambling and the Coalition to End Gambling Ads. Will Prochaska, director of the coalition and a prominent witness, shares board membership of the charity Action on Gambling with Lord Foster. When questioned about how the committee reconciled the shirt ban, monopoly evidence, and GSGB debates, a spokesperson stated that the report reflects a "wide range of arguments" and referred to relevant sections.
