Premier League football should tackle high risk gambling and trading sponsorship

The men’s 2024-25 English Premier League football season kicked off in August. However, the action was not confined to the pitch; the league’s gambling marketing volume in its opening weekend was almost three times higher than the previous season.1 Its 20 clubs—together worth an estimated £10 billion2—have extraordinary influence over hundreds of millions of supporters and viewers at home and abroad. At their best, men and women’s professional football clubs can be vehicles for improving health and are anchors, bringing communities together across the world.3

The same cannot be said for the sponsorship arrangements negotiated by these clubs. The introduction of the Gambling Act 2005 allowed companies to advertise all forms of gambling in any media with very limited controls.4 Over time, gambling companies placed themselves front and centre as the leading sponsors of Premier League football in England, with 18 of the 20 clubs taking on a gambling sponsor last season.5 Long overdue restrictions are required on sponsorship of gambling, cryptoassets and high risk financial products to mitigate their health risks.

There has been a welcome health-related focus on the saturation of gambling advertising in sports, including from leaders in the NHS, academia, public health bodies, and third sector organisations. They have drawn attention to the growing evidence of the health harms caused to people who gamble and their loved ones.6789 Premier League clubs have voluntarily agreed to a ban on front-of-shirt gambling sponsors from summer 2026.10 However, this measure alone is insufficient, and other financial products with the potential to cause public health harm have escaped scrutiny.

Cryptoassets—including cryptocurrency, high frequency stock trading, and high risk derivatives—are complicated financial products that are difficult to understand for the public and users alike. These products often bear the hallmarks of “gamblified” products: most investors lose, they attract people at risk of gambling related harm, and they encourage high frequency of use and promise huge financial windfalls.1112 High frequency of cryptocurrency use is associated with higher self reported gambling scores,131415 and financial losses and debt are associated with worsened physical and mental health.16 The legislative protection for the promotion and purchase of cryptoassets is particularly weak,17 and the computing power required to produce major cryptoassets results in exceptionally high environmental costs.18

In the 2023-24 season, 10 Premier League teams had some form of sponsorship from companies involved in cryptocurrency or financial trading.5 Some of these sponsors seem to be primarily selling a non-cryptoasset product (such as fan engagement experiences) but then require purchases to be made in cryptocurrency owned by the company, which they market separately as an investment opportunity.19 This is a global issue since the majority of people using cryptoasset or trading products advertised by Premier League teams will likely not be living in the UK but in low and middle income countries such as Nigeria, Vietnam, and South Africa, where per-capita cryptoasset use is much higher20 and cryptoasset scams have caused billions in losses.21

Health experts and organisations know from decades dealing with the tobacco, alcohol, and unhealthy food industries that voluntary agreements to reduce harm from the commercial determinants of health are limited, flawed, and prioritise the interests of corporations over health.2223 Their voice in the public sphere, so welcome on gambling, can help safeguard against potential health harms arising from cryptoassets and other new financial instruments.

A total ban on gambling advertising would be a marked improvement on voluntary removal of front-of-shirt gambling sponsors. Yet we have to consider what would fill the sponsorship vacuum. Cryptoassets and trading platforms already have a strong presence in the Premier League. Health professionals and organisations should use their influence to advocate to the government that any advertising ban in sport should include a broader definition of gamblified products that includes cryptoassets, high frequency trading, high risk derivatives, and new gamblified products that may emerge. The greatest health prize lies in wider reaching restriction of advertising of unhealthy commodities.