Gambling advertising restrictions – do they work?

Gambling advertising was first allowed across all media in the UK back in 2007. Since then, we’ve seen a huge rise in gambling advertisements, along with a healthy dose of controversy. 

The most recent legal change occurred in October 2022 when the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) gave their gambling rules an overhaul. This change was to reflect growing concerns about adverts reaching young people and those vulnerable to gambling addiction, whilst also balancing the need for gambling companies to be able to make money – and pay taxes. 

In this article we're going to look at:

• Overview of gambling advertising legislation
• Case study: Ladbrokes
• UK sports paying the price
• Relationship between advertising and problem gambling
• Is gambling a problem for the young?
• Are advertising restrictions the answer?
• Conclusion: A holistic approach

Overview of the new gambling advertising legislation

The biggest change to gambling advertising laws has been to prevent adverts from appealing to young people at all. Previously, gambling adverts merely needed to not be targeted at young people or children, but now things are much tighter. 

Adverts must not include reality shows popular with under-18s, top flight footballers, or sportspeople in general who are well-known to under-18s. This extends as far as their social media following. Additionally, references to video game content is a no-no, which could be a problem for esports betting companies. Of course, gambling advertisements still must not feature children, but also shouldn’t prominently feature anyone who could be under the age of 25. 

Case study: a bad day for Ladbrokes

In December 2022, the first ruling in relation to the new rules was handed out to Ladbrokes. The company had promoted a tweet featuring a video of Premier League footballers, Philippe Coutinho, Jesse Lingard and Kalidou Koulibaly, alongside a question about where they might be transferred over the summer. 

The ASA claimed that this advert would appeal to under-18s as football is so widely followed by this age bracket. Ladbrokes contested that firstly, the tweet was only promoted to serve as brand engagement, rather than an advert in and of itself. Secondly, they had only promoted the tweet (using Twitter’s age gating technology) to those over the age of 25. Data showed that the tweet didn’t reach anybody under the age of 20. However, the ASA stood their ground and Ladbrokes were forced to remove the tweet.

...and Betfred, SkyBet

Since then, there have been plenty more infringements, including a tweet by Betfred that was deemed unsuitable as it featured boxer Anthony Joshua. The ASA deemed Joshua to be someone who would appeal to under-18s. This, despite Betfred’s protests that the vast majority of boxing matches are pay-per-view and only available to over-18s. 

SkyBet too were asked in October 2023 to remove a Tweet which featured the ever-youthful Gary Neville, as he was seen to have a large following of under-18s. Neville retired from playing football in 2011, when even the eldest of the group concerned would have been just 6 years old.

UK’s favourite sports paying the price 

As well as the ASA’s updates to gambling advertisements targeting young people, there have been some other changes too. One of the most widely talked about was the decision that Premier League football club shirts will be gambling sponsor-free, as of Summer 2026. At the moment, 11 out of the 20 Premier League teams have a gambling sponsor. So, this change will certainly reduce the number of young and vulnerable people inadvertently exposed to gambling companies. 

However, it will be interesting to see if this ban is rolled out to other football clubs in other divisions and leagues. After all, are those who support League One teams Birmingham City or Peterborough United less prone to problem gambling than those who support Chelsea or Manchester United?

Another body that the ASA are working alongside is the British Horseracing Authority (BHA), in order to reduce gambling sponsorship in racing. As anyone who’s enjoyed a day at the races will know, gambling company sponsorship is key to the industry. The companies pay a premium to have their name attached as a prefix to the name of the race, and sometimes have banners on the front of fences. They contribute to prize money, keep racecourses going, enabling us to enjoy better quality racing as a result of the higher prize money. Without the financial support through gambling advertising, it’s arguable that British horseracing would be on its knees.

Randox, anyone?

Do you know what Randox, the sponsors of the Grand National, actually do? They’re a multinational healthcare business, but how many people will have thought to look them up as a result of seeing their name associated with the Grand National? This is because Randox isn't there to encourage people to invest in them, or buy from them. Just like John West didn’t sponsor Sheffield Wednesday in the hopes that the folks of Steel City would start cramming their shopping trolleys full of tinned fish. Both did what they did to increase brand visibility. 

So the question becomes, is Bet365 sponsoring the Cheltenham Gold Cup going to encourage people to gamble, any more than Randox sponsoring the Grand National encourages people to invest in healthcare?

The relationship between gambling advertising and problem gambling

To answer the prior question, we need to look at just how effective gambling advertising actually is. Does it affect those who either have a gambling problem, or are prone to developing one? Unfortunately, there have been very few studies that could prove a causal link between gambling advertising and problem gambling. In fact, in an investigation by the House of Lords they couldn’t find a single one, though there are some suggestions that there’s a correlation. 

However, problem gamblers, as tough of a pill as it may be to swallow, make the gambling industry (and therefore the government) an awful lot of money. A 2018 report stated that profits from problem gamblers make up around a quarter of the UK gambling industry’s income, with a further third of profits coming from those who would be considered ‘at risk’ of becoming problem gamblers. In an industry worth £15.1 billion, that’s a whole lot of tax that the government could be missing out on, if they were to crack down on a ban on gambling advertisement entirely – or indeed take a more robust approach to tackling problem gambling.

The government needs to appear to be taking problem gambling seriously, so introducing harsher restrictions around gambling advertising seems like a good solution. However, it’s also not necessarily in their best interests to eradicate problem gambling, as that is where a big chunk of the money is made. 

So, it seems that the focus has been shifted onto young people, many who shouldn’t legally be gambling anyway and don’t make the industry (or the government) a lot of money from gambling. Not to mention, there will always be support for measures that protect our children. Estimates put just 1.5% of children at risk of becoming problem gamblers in the future against 2.5% of the general population. So, is the ASA’s new guidance protecting children actually tackling the biggest issue, or is it diverting attention?

Is gambling a problem for the UK’s young people?

One of the main drivers of the ASA’s updated framework is to protect children and young people from becoming problem gamblers, which we can all agree is a sensible idea. A driving force behind this decision is the increasing evidence that gambling advertising is not only reaching children, but encouraging them to gamble. 

GambleAware conducted a report in 2020 from which almost all young people who responded (11 to 24 years old) reported they’d been exposed to gambling adverts in the previous month, with only 4% saying they hadn’t seen one. This sits alongside their findings that for young people who did not currently gamble “exposure to advertising was significantly associated with likelihood to gamble in the future”.

While most gambling took place as bets between friends and family, or on arcade and penny machines, there was a small number within this age group who had played slots or placed bets online. Overall, 26% of respondents claimed to gamble regularly. 

The ASA can’t stop bets between friends, but not even a tiny percentage of underage people should be able to access slots online. Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures go a long way towards eliminating underage online gambling, but they can’t prevent young people from accessing offshore or unregulated casinos. It’s clear that something needs to change and perhaps a crackdown on advertising will solve some of the problem, but it’s hard to say exactly what impact it will have on the effort to stamp out underage gambling entirely.

Are advertising restrictions the answer?

To understand whether advertising restrictions can solve unhealthy behaviours, it’s a good idea to look at other problem behaviours where restrictions have been implemented. Smoking is a classic example and one where Britain has taken a well-rounded approach. The ban on advertising, the inclusion of off-putting images on tobacco products, the ban on smoking inside public spaces, heavier taxes on cigarettes and anti-smoking campaigns have all contributed to a huge decrease in the number of people who smoke. The reason it worked so effectively is that it took a multi-pronged approach.

If we look back in time to the early 1970s in the US, we see that Congress banned all cigarette commercials in January 1971. They assumed that this would be sufficient to decrease smoking, particularly in young people. However, the opposite happened. Cigarette consumption had been declining prior to 1971, but with the total ban it actually started to increase. The reason? They also stopped public health warnings about the effects of smoking. In this case, restrictions, or even outright bans on smoking have been proven to be not just ineffective, but actually detrimental, when not used in conjunction with other deterrents. 

Of course, it’s impossible to draw a direct comparison with gambling, but it is an interesting point, one that companies like GAMSTOP and Gamcare would probably agree with.

A holistic approach will always win

The restrictions to gambling advertising will have detrimental effects economically, but probably not for the gambling companies themselves. Instead, industries like horse racing will suffer if gambling sponsorships are removed. Whether that’s a fair price to pay for a reduction in problem gamblers is down to personal opinion.

However, if we combine the restrictions in gambling advertising, with gambling awareness campaigns, better access to help for problem gamblers, responsible gambling tools across all sites, and increased penalties for gambling platforms that aren’t licensed, there could be real, meaningful change. Already we are seeing the increase in demand for help. In 2023, GamCare reported that their national gambling helpline received 24% more calls than in 2022. That increase is not because we have 24% more problem gamblers, but because people are becoming better educated about gambling addiction and the help that is available to them. 

If we can continue to employ stringent KYC checks and direct people to those who can help them, we could help problem gamblers far more effectively than gambling advertising restrictions can alone.