Football Governance Bill [HL]

Committee (5th Day) (Continued)

Amendment 143

143: Schedule 4, page 97, line 24, at end insert— “(f) gambling advertising and sponsorship.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment requires clubs to consult fans on gambling advertising and sponsorship.

My Lords, I begin by apologising that my involvement in the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill has prevented me from attending earlier sessions of your Committee’s deliberation. But I am very conscious that the fan-led review, which in a sense led to the Football Governance Bill, found that many fans raised severe concerns about the level of gambling advertising and sponsorship in sport. This is especially notable because it was unprompted, yet nothing in the Bill addresses these concerns. It should, and that is why I am moving Amendment 143 and speaking to Amendment 255. In doing so, I declare my interest as chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform.

Gambling in the UK is worth £15 billion a year and with it comes gambling harm, which is a major problem in our country. It is worth reflecting that over half of the gambling industry’s profits comes from those already suffering harm from gambling. Official statistics show that millions of people, including a horrifying number of children, are impacted by gambling. The Department of Health says that there could be more than one gambling-related suicide a day. Gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship encourage more gambling, more profit for operators and more gambling-related harm. It is a serious public health issue.

The previous Government’s White Paper on gambling included no meaningful measures to address it. Nothing was offered to tackle the relentless bombardment of gambling messages, costing the industry over £1.5 billion a year, which has grown exponentially since the liberalisation of advertising in the Gambling Act 2005.

Speaking from the Dispatch Box just a couple of years ago, the noble Lord, Lord True, said:

“My personal view, as a sports fan, is that I am sick and tired of gambling advertising being thrust down viewers’ throats”.—[Official Report, 27/1/22; col. 446.]

The reality, however, is far from harmless. Gambling messages linked to football create a dangerous association for children between their love for the game and gambling. Research clearly shows that children as young as 11 can name multiple betting company logos simply from seeing them in a football context. Children are much more impressionable than adults; exposing them to gambling at a young age has been shown to make them more likely to gamble in the future. With that in mind, it should come as no surprise that, according to official statistics released just recently, the number of children experiencing a gambling problem has doubled in the last year; and the situation is getting worse.

Research by Bristol University found a staggering increase in the number of gambling messages seen during the opening weekend of the Premier League this year. Its figures show that there were nearly 30,000 gambling messages disseminated over the weekend, almost triple the 11,000 recorded last year. As Football Supporters Against Gambling Ads has said:

“Our game has become a billboard for an irresponsible gambling industry to advertise products that are causing serious harm to fans”.

And imagine what that advertising bombardment does to a person who has given up gambling and is trying to avoid starting again.

While the UK has shied away from meaningful action, other nations have acted decisively. The UK has more research showing the negative impact of gambling marketing than the research output on this issue of Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain combined. Yet these countries and many others have implemented near-total bans on gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship.

Our Government already have the evidence but are taking little action. Only 20 minutes ago, I received an answer to a Written Parliamentary Question from the Minister. In it, she says that she has tasked the industry to

“raise standards to ensure that levels of gambling advertising does not exacerbate harm”.

I have to question the Minister. Whatever does that mean? Is she expecting the industry to reduce the amount of advertising, change the nature of the messages in the advertisements or what? The evidence is very clear indeed. Gambling advertising leads to more gambling harm. The solution is to reduce it, to reduce sponsorship and so on.

In the absence of the Government taking any action, many clubs are taking matters into their own hands. Almost 40 football clubs have supported the Big Step campaign and ceased all links with gambling companies. In the case of AFC Wimbledon, for instance, 79% of fans surveyed support it because it said:

“As a club at the heart of our community, we are committed to being a force for good”.

Luton rejected sponsorship deals as the board was “uncomfortable” promoting pro-gambling messages to young fans. Incidentally, such clubs—even some in the Premier League—have demonstrated that it is possible to replace from other sources revenue lost from gambling companies.

I worry that the Minister will argue that government action is not needed, given the voluntary action being taken by the football authorities. That voluntary action simply is not working. The “whistle to whistle” ban has not reduced the overall number of gambling messages. The proposed ban on gambling logos on the fronts of shirts will have little impact, as those logos represent under 7% of messages seen during a game. And the voluntary code of conduct, much praised by the Government, has already been breached on multiple occasions, including cases of gambling links on the children’s pages of club websites. Self-regulation has not worked. That is why I am arguing for these two amendments.

One of my amendments suggests that fans should be consulted on the issue. Opinion polls suggest they will support the banning of commercial relationships between their club and gambling companies. The other simply requires the regulator to ensure that such a ban is put in place. Both are likely to lead to the same result. They present an opportunity for professional football to restore its reputation as a force for good in this country; for clubs to show they are capable of putting their fans above short-term profits; and for the Government to demonstrate that sporting Great Britain can lead the way in protecting the health of the next generation. I beg to move.