Crystal Palace the latest sports club to gamble with its reputation

Sponsorship revenues are fundamental to the very existence of sports clubs at all levels. They are undoubtedly among the biggest income streams at the elite level - and Premier League football clubs have often led the way in recent years in maximising these revenues, in part to fund ever-growing expenses on transfer fees, wages and stadium expansions.

As with any sponsorship, the need for a rights holder to maximise revenue, must always be considered alongside choosing the “right” partner, in terms of fit for the club, authenticity, activations, values and - crucially - reputation. In many circumstances, due to financial pressures, we see these latter considerations falling away, with sponsorship fees appearing to carry a disproportionately heavy weighting in decision making.

Crystal Palace have faced significant criticism from their own fanbase and beyond for their latest “record” front-of-shirt (FOS) deal, announced recently, with gambling firm Net88. The deal runs for two years - ending just before the ban on FOS gambling sponsors in the Premier League and is seen very much as a last chance to “cash in” on a sector which has brought in significant revenue for clubs across the league, before the prohibition takes effect.  

The ethics of gambling sponsorship in football have been debated for many years, leading to the upcoming ban. However in this case the criticism has been heightened by the fact that Net88 is what is known as a white-label gambling firm. Officially operating out of the UK and regulated as such, but with little to no UK presence or apparent focus - it is instead primarily aimed at the East Asian market. The decision to sponsor a Premier League club, with global appeal, enables Net88 to effectively advertise to audiences in territories such as China and Vietnam, where gambling advertising is banned but where the Premier League is (as is the case across the globe) very popular.

Partnerships of this nature are typically short term and see little in the way of synergies, meaningful activations or collaborative projects between sponsor and rights holder, but the revenue they can offer will often trump this, as well as - it seems - supporter criticism. What constitutes the “right” partner will always be a question of nuance and circumstance, but for now in this example, at least until the Premier League FOS gambling sponsor ban kicks in, it appears to simply be the highest bidder.

Bristows advises on marketing and sponsorship deals for major brands and rights holders across the sports sector and beyond. To find out more or get in touch, please click here.