Eight Premier League clubs entered the summer without a front-of-shirt sponsor after the voluntary ban on gambling sponsorships came into force. The measure, agreed by clubs in April 2023, has wiped out a major revenue stream ahead of the 2026-27 season.

Clubs without long-term replacement deals face a combined shortfall of around £80 million, with Aston Villa, Bournemouth, Brentford, Chelsea, Crystal Palace, Everton, Fulham and Nottingham Forest still searching for new partners.

Why the Premier League Gambling Sponsorship Ban Matters

Back in April 2023, all 20 Premier League clubs agreed to voluntarily remove gambling sponsors from the front of matchday shirts, working with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on the plan. Clubs were given three seasons to transition away from existing betting deals.

That grace period expired this summer, making the 2026-27 campaign the first in which no Premier League club can display a gambling sponsor on the front of its shirt.

Eleven of the 20 clubs had a gambling firm as their main shirt sponsor as recently as last season. Replacing that money hasn't been simple. Betting operators, particularly those chasing exposure in Asian markets, were willing to pay well above market rate for shirt space.

Non-gambling brands generally aren't matching those numbers, and that gap between old and new deal values is where the £80 million figure comes from.

Which Premier League Clubs Are Still Without Shirt Sponsors?

Nottingham Forest are one of the clubs still searching for a replacement. Bally's Corporation, the American gambling operator that sponsored the club's shirts, is no longer eligible under the ban, and Evangelos Marinakis' club has yet to secure a replacement despite its stated commercial ambitions.

Sunderland face a similar challenge, but with higher stakes. Newly promoted and preparing for Europa League football after a strong finish last season, the club had W88, an operator without a UK licence, on its shirts in 2025-26.

Reports from the Sunderland Echo this month suggest a replacement deal is close, with European football potentially giving any new sponsor greater international exposure.

Chelsea's gap has nothing to do with the ban directly. The West London club hasn't had a permanent front-of-shirt sponsor since a deal with telecoms firm Three expired back in 2023 and has instead moved through a series of short-term arrangements with Infinite Athlete, DAMAC and, most recently, AI firm IFS.

The Blues are understood to be seeking around £65 million a season, but missing out on European football after finishing 10th has made that valuation harder to achieve.

Everton have not completely cut ties with Stake, their former front-of-shirt sponsor, despite the operator losing its UK gambling licence last year. Instead, the company has moved to the club's sleeve, a placement not covered by the voluntary ban.

How Premier League Clubs Are Replacing Gambling Sponsors

Clubs outside the traditional "big six" have taken the sharpest hit. Shirt sponsorship offers for mid-table clubs have reportedly fallen by around 50%, from a typical £8 million-£12 million range to £4 million-£6 million.

One industry source told The Sponsor that clubs replacing gambling sponsors with non-gambling brands stand to lose an average of around 38% of the value of their front-of-shirt deals. The clubs that have moved fastest have mostly turned to finance.

Everton signed a trading platform CMC Markets in a deal worth around £30 million over three years, confirmed on 1 July. Crystal Palace partnered with Temporal, while Brentford extended its existing agreement with Indeed.

The financial impact is particularly clear when comparing the value of replacement deals with the sponsorships they have replaced.

Bournemouth, for example, have moved from gambling operator BJ88 to health insurer Vitality, with the new deal reportedly worth £4-5 million per year compared with an estimated £6.1 million from their previous agreement.

That gap illustrates the wider challenge facing clubs across the Premier League. Gambling companies were willing to pay a premium for prominent shirt exposure, particularly because of the international audiences they could reach. Clubs now have to find partners in other industries willing to match that commercial value, and not every team has been able to do so.