At the start of the last Premier League season, eleven clubs ran out with a gambling company's logo on the front of their shirt. As the next campaign approaches, every one of those clubs needs a new partner. At the same time, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has sent a formal letter to Premier League clubs warning that a growing number of their financial services sponsors, including crypto exchanges and unregulated brokers, may be operating unlawfully in the United Kingdom.These are two separate events, but together they have massive commercial consequences.The Premier League's total front-of-shirt sponsorship market is absorbing what insiders describe as a collective revenue hit of approximately £80 million per season. One senior club executive bluntly described the current negotiating environment to The Guardian: "Nearly everyone is losing money."Into that gap, the financial services sector has been moving aggressively. Between 2021 and 2026, crypto and trading platforms collectively invested an estimated £400 million in Premier League partnerships. By the 2025-26 season, financial services, including crypto and blockchain companies, had established sponsorship presence at 14 of the 20 Premier League clubs.FCA-authorised brokers have already moved to capitalise. CMC Markets, the London-listed CFD and spread betting broker, has already become the front shirt sponsor of Everton and is reportedly in advanced negotiations with Fulham as well.The path, however, is not straightforward. Yen Sim, a strategic sponsorship and branding adviser specialising in the trading and financial sector, currently the Chief Partnership Officer at BrandNova, warns that a history of defaults in the sector has fundamentally changed what many clubs require before they will sign: "Because some trading sponsors have failed to pay in the past, many clubs in this category now insist on upfront or front-loaded terms and rigorous vetting, and brands that cannot or will not meet that bar fall away."Then the FCA stepped in.The Regulator's LetterOn 3 June 2026, the FCA published a press release confirming it had written directly to Premier League clubs to warn them about sponsorship relationships with unauthorised financial firms. The regulator recorded "a growth in partnerships with unauthorised firms, some of which are operating illegally," and warned that clubs could face legal liability, money laundering risks, and reputational damage from these deals.The letter, signed by Fiona Mackinnon-Miller, head of the FCA's fraud, consumer promotion and investment department, went further: money received from an unauthorised firm may constitute criminal property.The FCA also set out five due diligence checks clubs should be conducting before signing any financial services partner: confirming whether the firm is FCA-authorised or relies on an exemption; checking whether its services are regulated under UK law; assessing whether it has geo-blocking or other mechanisms to prevent UK consumers from accessing its products; reviewing the FCA's warning list; and obtaining specialist legal advice where there is any doubt.Lucy Castledine, director of consumer investments at the FCA, put it plainly: "Millions of football fans trust their club's badge. Clubs should not let unauthorised financial firms exploit that loyalty by putting potentially dodgy products in front of millions of fans. A logo on a shirt means one thing: that firm paid for it."The names attached to specific deals underline the scale of the issue. Among the clubs engaged in sponsorships with unauthorised crypto firms are Manchester City, which is partnered with OKX, and Chelsea, which is partnered with crypto exchange BingX. Newcastle United is partnered with VT Markets, a broker that appears on the FCA's warning list and has no UK licence.Other non-FCA-regulated brokers with Premier League sponsorships, at least until last season, were TMGM Sponsoring Chelsea, IUX sponsoring Fulham, Doo Prime sponsoring Manchester United, and Traderscale with a deal with Sunderland. Finance Magnates approached them to know the status of their Premier League sponsorship deals, but did not receive any reply.The FCA said it has engaged directly with the government, the Premier League, and the incoming Independent Football Regulator to address the situation.Inside the Deal: What the Process Actually Looks LikeFor clubs navigating this environment, the challenge begins long before a sponsorship agreement is signed. Sim explains that the fundamental error most brands make is beginning the process from the wrong end."It should begin with the brand's objectives, not club availability: which markets does it want to grow in, who is it trying to reach, what licences does it hold, and what does it want the sponsorship to achieve? Starting with 'which club is available?' is the most common mistake," she elaborated.The process, properly structured, requires the brand to appoint a mandate-holding representative before any formal approach is made. From there, rights are benchmarked against comparable properties, territories are matched to the brand's regulatory permissions, and detailed legal review runs in parallel with commercial negotiation. Crucially, Sim points out that category labels carry direct regulatory implications."Commercially, labels such as 'trading partner,' 'forex partner,' 'fintech partner,' or 'digital asset partner' determine how wide the sponsor's exclusivity runs and which competitors the club can still sign, so the wording is heavily contested. From a regulatory standpoint, those same labels carry different implications for how, and to whom, the brand can market."That intersection of commercial and regulatory logic is exactly where many deals now break down.Read more: How Much Fancy Sport Sponsorships Actually Cost?Sim identifies valuation and regulatory eligibility as the two most common deal-killers: "A club may only have European rights available while the trading firm lacks the permissions to serve or market to clients there; marketing rules in that region are strict in their own right, and the European regulator's intervention on CFD and forex promotion to retail clients reshaped how brokers can advertise. Proceeding could create regulatory exposure for limited commercial return and, however attractive the club, the deal may simply not make sense for that sponsor."On the implications for clubs, she argues that the compliance and reputational functions are now as central to the process as the commercial team: "A club is conscious that a poorly vetted partner in that category can damage its ability to attract other brands in the same space later."The Gambling Exit and Its ArithmeticThe gambling ban's commercial consequences are now plain to see. Bournemouth and Brentford have each shifted existing partners to front-of-shirt roles at fees understood to be in the range of £4 million to £5 million per year, significantly below the values of their prior agreements with gambling brands. One senior executive told The Guardian: "Outside the big six, shirt sponsorship offers have dropped by around 50 per cent from a range of between £8 million and £12 million a season."Around nine clubs have yet to finalise new front-of-shirt deals ahead of 2026-27, and some face a real possibility of starting the season with a blank shirt.For Matt House, founder and CEO of sports marketing consultancy Sportquake, this represents the most significant reset the front-of-shirt market has seen in a generation. "Betting is deeply integrated into the Premier League and wider sports sponsorship landscape.”The CFD OpportunityThe convergence of the gambling exit and the FCA's crackdown on unregulated operators has created what may be a rare structural window for FCA-authorised CFD brokers.Early market signals support this reading. CMC Markets already snuck in and is now the front-of-shirt sponsor of Everton. Although the financials of the deal have not been disclosed, earlier reports estimate that it's the broker's interest in Everton and Fulham for front-of-shirt deals might be worth up to £50 million over three years.Meanwhile, Trade Nation, which holds FCA authorisation as well as registrations outside, holds a sleeve partnership with Aston Villa, quietly positioning itself as a compliant alternative to the offshore names that have historically dominated trading sponsorships in English football.Pricing, however, might deter many brands from taking advantage of the gap. Matt Gamby, founder of sports marketing advisory Playmaker Sport, sees the FCA's warning as a segmentation event rather than a category retreat. "I do not believe it will materially reduce sponsorship pricing.” “Instead, the sponsorship market will evolve,” he added, “clubs and brands will be more prescriptive in the way they work. Sponsorship packages will be delivered on the basis of the brand licensing structure: if a brand is looking and permitted to target the UK audience, the sponsorship package will reflect this. In a similar manner, if said brand is unable to target the UK market, the sponsorship package will be adapted to reflect this."Related: Swissquote Spends $15 Million Annually in Sports Deals, Leaves eToro and Plus500 BehindGamby draws a direct comparison to precedents in continental Europe. "We have already seen similar dynamics in Spain and France, where both countries have a complete CFD advertising ban. That being said, it has not prevented the major clubs from partnering with brokers, with these partnerships instead focused on audiences outside of these jurisdictions. I perceive this as more of a segmentation of the market, rather than a reduction in demand."House concurs that the FCA's warning is less about removing the category than about elevating standards within it. "The FCA warning isn't about removing crypto sponsorship from football. It's about raising standards, deterring questionable operators and strengthening the position of firms with credible regulatory credentials. That's good for fans, good for clubs and ultimately good for the crypto sector."Sim, on the other hand, frames it as a question of competitive advantage. "Better-regulated firms with clear strategies for managing jurisdictional restrictions will remain the most attractive partner, while firms with unclear regulatory positions are likely to find opportunities more limited." She goes further, noting that for trading brands specifically, a regional or "official partner" designation, properly structured, can deliver substantial international visibility at a fraction of the cost of a full global deal: "A regional partnership, say, a continental 'official partner' status, can be a fraction of the cost of a global deal yet, structured correctly, still be promoted internationally. For many trading brands, that is the smartest entry point into top-flight football."Who is Most ExposedThe FCA's letter drew no public distinction between specific clubs or firms. But the commercial logic of who faces the most disruption is relatively clear.The ban is expected to leave a massive gap in club budgets, and crypto firms have been aggressively moving to fill that void. But not all crypto or trading firms are equally positioned to do so under heightened scrutiny.House identifies a clear hierarchy of exposure. "Offshore firms with unclear regulatory positioning are likely to be most exposed and, as a result, get put off as they don't want the hassle of complying with UK law. From a rights-holder perspective, smaller clubs may be exposed, particularly newly promoted clubs with fewer commercial alternatives and less access to specialist sponsorship and regulatory advice."The three clubs promoted to the Premier League for 2026-27, Coventry City, Ipswich Town, and Hull City, enter the top flight with none of the commercial infrastructure or institutional memory of dealing with regulated financial services sponsors.The FCA's five-point due diligence checklist will create higher compliance costs that smaller clubs are less well placed to absorb.Gamby identifies that the firms most at risk are the ones “targeting UK consumers without the appropriate authorisations or permissions,” adding: “The notice will place greater scrutiny on brands that are soliciting UK clients without the necessary regulatory approvals and, as a result, those firms may need to reassess how they conduct their marketing and promotional activities."He also highlights that "the UK is moving towards a more comprehensive regulatory framework for crypto assets over the next 12-24 months, which creates a degree of uncertainty for brands considering significant sponsorship investments in UK-based properties before there is greater clarity on the long-term regulatory landscape." Crypto firms are scheduled to begin applying for FCA authorisation from September 2026, with full regulation expected to take effect by October 2027.What Changes and What Doesn'tDespite the scale of the disruption, both events are likely to be absorbed before the upcoming season.On the FCA warning, neither House nor Gamby expects a wave of contract terminations. "Most major sponsorship agreements involving crypto firms are already structured to comply with UK regulations," House notes. "As a result, I would not expect widespread reviews, renegotiations or terminations as a consequence of this FCA communication alone." Gamby echoes this: "I do not expect this to result in a wholesale shift overnight, or an immediate termination of existing sponsorship agreements."What both expect is a systematic tightening of due diligence. Gamby anticipates greater reliance on external legal counsel, stricter review of geo-blocking mechanisms for non-UK-authorised brands, and an increased focus on whether a sponsor is actively targeting UK consumers in its existing marketing. "Where a brand does not have the necessary regulatory permissions to solicit UK consumers, clubs and intermediaries are likely to scrutinise what measures are in place to ensure that UK consumers cannot access its promotions or services, for example, through geo-blocking."Sim's analysis also stressed the commercial bottom line: "Ultimately, a successful sponsorship needs more than agreement on price: a genuine strategic match, regulatory compatibility, and confidence that both brands can protect and strengthen each other's reputation."That standard, regulatory compatibility as a commercial prerequisite, is new to football sponsorship in its current form. It is, however, the standard that FCA-authorised CFD firms have been meeting for years. As the Premier League's front-of-shirt inventory resets, the brands best positioned to take it are the ones that can hand a club's legal team a clean regulatory profile on day one. This article was written by Arnab Shome at www.financemagnates.com.

Read full article on FINANCEMAGNETS