Public health advocates have long sought to regulate bookmakers in a manner akin to tobacco corporations. On September 17, the House of Lords Liaison Committee released a follow-up report urging the government to implement a ban on gambling advertising "as soon as practicable." The committee also recommended that ministers abandon their goal of expanding the licensed gambling industry, reverting instead to the pre-2005 stance that gambling should be tolerated but not actively promoted. They argue that there is "no evidence for the safety of gambling advertising."
The gambling industry, however, disagrees with this assessment. Grainne Hurst, the chief executive of the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC), criticized the report as "a deeply misguided report which risks weakening, rather than strengthening, consumer protection."
The report's initial factual assertion claims that between one million and 1.5 million adults in Great Britain engage in problematic gambling behavior. This estimate derives from the Gambling Commission's Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB), which identifies that 2.4% of adults score eight or higher on the Problem Gambling Severity Index. The report acknowledges that the NHS Health Survey for England, which reported a 0.7% rate in 2024, implies approximately 350,000 adults may be problem gamblers.
The validity of this measure is disputed. Dan Waugh, a partner at Regulus Partners, indicates that GSGB reports higher prevalence rates than other official data over the past two decades, including three NHS surveys and the commission's own telephone survey. He attributes this disparity to "topic salience," suggesting that individuals with an interest in gambling are more likely to participate in surveys focused on that subject. Waugh points out that the GSGB may "over-recruit gamblers and more engaged gamblers."
Compounding this issue is the response rate of 18%-19%, which falls short of the survey’s intended 22%. In 2023, Heather Wardle, an academic, cautioned the commission about the risks of topic salience bias, advice that surfaced only through a freedom of information request.
The commission defends its survey, asserting that it was crafted, reviewed, and approved by experts and suggesting that respondents are likely to be more truthful without an interviewer present. The report references Academic Patrick Sturgis of the London School of Economics in support of this methodology. Yet, his 2024 review recommended caution due to potential overstatement risks. The committee outlines the existing disagreements but seems to favor the GSGB's findings, even going so far as to suggest older surveys, including data behind its own 2020 report, may have underestimated gambling issues.
Waugh states that while the report acknowledges concerns about the GSGB's accuracy, it proceeds on the assumption that the GSGB's figures are dependable.
Another point of contention is the timing of any potential ban. The report claims voluntary measures implemented to date "have not gone far enough." However, the most significant of these—namely the Premier League's decision to remove gambling sponsors from the front of team shirts—only began in August. The committee received oral evidence on June 17, prior to any shirt alterations, and still expressed "no confidence" in the efficacy of such a ban. They rely on an academic estimate claiming that the ban would only reduce visible gambling marketing by approximately 9%. Waugh, who also provided testimony, responded that he believes a 9% reduction still represents a significant drop.
The committee cites Manchester United's reported training kit sponsorship with Betway to suggest sponsorship is merely shifting rather than vanishing. They further recommend replacing a wagering cap introduced in January and yet-to-be-evaluated opt-in rules for direct marketing with outright bans.
A central concern for the industry is the potential impact of an advertising ban on the black market, with many asserting that such a move could cede territory to illegal operators. The committee dismisses this concern as "insufficiently evidenced."
Hurst responds, stating, "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 main counter-evidence comes from the UKRI Gambling Harms Research UK Evidence Centre, featuring a study by Philip Newall, Allegra Whybrow, and Jamie Torrance, which purportedly shows that interviews with representatives from state monopoly operators across Europe suggested that advertising restrictions did not lead to a shift in consumers toward illegal operators.
However, the study was not structured to address that specific inquiry. The authors engaged with 11 individuals in safer gambling roles at ten state-owned operators in 2024, with seven of those in Europe. The essence of their research lay in safer gambling practices, not illegal market dynamics. Moreover, in a monopoly market, the only true alternative to the established state operator is an illegal one, and the landscape of European online monopolies is contracting.
Finland exemplifies the issue. Veikkaus, its state operator, has maintained since 2022 that its monopoly should cease. The Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority estimates that nearly half of all online gambling funds are spent outside the monopoly. Veikkaus CEO Olli Sarekoski remarked last month, "A lot of gaming is outside the official channels. What is the point of the monopoly if this is the case?" Next July, Finland will permit licensed competitors to enter its online market. While Veikkaus's perspective pertains to market structure rather than advertising, it contrasts sharply with the findings from the monopoly stakeholder interviews.
The industry’s own statistics surrounding the prevalence of illegal operators are also under scrutiny. The BGC's projection of £845 million in advertising by unlicensed operators this year stems from research it commissioned through WARC. In contrast, the Gambling Commission has stated its data do not show persistent growth in illegal market engagement.
Critics take issue with the report's approach to evidence. It labels the government's demand for proof of causality in harm as a "fundamental misunderstanding" of social science, asserting that it "does not doubt" that licensed operators generate most advertising volume, while also admitting earlier in the report that it had received no definitive evidence in either direction.
The report highlights Newall’s characterization of displacement as "a misleading industry talking point" and reiterates models suggesting that a 10% decline in gambling spending would generate £1.25 billion for the economy and create around 22,000 jobs.
Waugh comments that, "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 data reliability issues or the threat of increased criminality – were obstacles to overcome rather than genuine considerations to grasp and address."
He asserts that the report expresses high hopes regarding enforcement against the black market without recognizing the practical realities of such challenges. Hurst draws attention to Italy, which enacted stringent advertising bans years ago, yet continues to struggle with a significant illegal market. In the Netherlands, she mentions warnings from regulators against instituting a total ban, reporting instead that only about half of gambling expenditures are channeled to licensed operators.
The committee partially addresses the Italian situation by suggesting that much of the remaining advertising comes from licensed firms using "alibi" brands to circumnavigate restrictions, rather than simply a consequence of displacement. Hurst cautions that a comprehensive ban "would remove a key competitive advantage of being licensed and regulated."
The committee, led by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and supported by four members from the original 2020 inquiry, conducted a solitary evidence session and requested written input from a purportedly "small, balanced selection" of stakeholders. Notably, several committee members declared potential conflicts of interest. Lord Smith of Hindhead chairs the Association of Conservative Clubs, which operates gaming machines and bingo games, while Lord Foster of Bath, acting chair of the earlier committee, acknowledged his reform efforts are funded by a consultancy supported by Derek Webb, who also backs the Campaign for Fairer Gambling and the Coalition to End Gambling Ads. Will Prochaska, the Coalition’s director, was a prominent witness in the inquiry, and he along with Lord Foster also serves on the board of the charity Action on Gambling.
When questioned about how the committee balanced the evidence related to the shirt ban, monopoly testimony, and the GSGB discussions, a Lords spokesperson remarked that "a wide range of arguments" was reflected in the report, referring to the relevant sections. The government now has two months to respond.
