Why do six Premier League clubs still not have front of shirt sponsors?
Not so long ago it was unthinkable that a Premier League club would go into a new season without a sponsor on the front of their shirt.
In recent years Chelsea and Nottingham Forest have made headlines for starting a campaign with a vacancy in that prime spot, precisely because it was such an anomaly.
But just weeks out from the start of a new season, no fewer than six Premier League clubs – Chelsea, Aston Villa, Fulham, Forest, Sunderland and Hull City – have yet to announce which brands will be their most prominent commercial partner.
It is no coincidence that it comes as the English top division begins a voluntary ban on gambling companies as front-of-shirt sponsors; 11 out of 20 had betting firms in that position last term.
“The main problem is that the Premier League’s front-of-shirt gambling sponsorship ban begins in 2026-27,” says Simon Dent, chairman of creative agency Firmative.
“Betting brands targeting the Asian market have long overinflated the English Premier League shirt market, so the ban has left a significant gap in what clubs can now achieve compared to historical figures.”
The gambling ban is “the major challenge” facing clubs “but not the only one”, says Neil Hopkins, chief strategy officer at M+C Saatchi Sport and Entertainment.
If Villa and Sunderland hoped that their qualification for the Champions League and Europa League respectively would elevate them to a new tier of sponsorship, they are yet to be borne out.
“Whether a ‘Big Six’ really exists on the pitch given disappointing seasons at Spurs and Chelsea, in sponsorship terms it certainly does,” adds Hopkins.
“Historically these clubs have not had betting sponsors as their larger international fanbases have attracted global brands willing to spend tens of millions of pounds.
“Many assumed the performance of Aston Villa, Bournemouth, Sunderland and others last season might attract similar brands who might previously have only focused on the ‘Big Six’.
“Of course, with a month or so still to go until kick-off, this may still happen but at this point it looks unlikely.”
AI and crypto firms fail to meet increased supply
Manchester United, Manchester City, Liverpool, Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur all earn upwards of £40m a year from their main sponsors without tapping gambling companies due to their global cachet.
Chelsea’s repeated struggles to sell their front-of-shirt sponsorship have been attributed to asking too high a price while their on-field fortunes have wavered, and it may be that others are also experiencing a reality check.
“Villa are attempting to replace the biggest deal that the club has ever had and I imagine they will be lucky to get half what [previous sponsor] Betano paid,” says Dent.
“Chelsea’s deal will be a price issue with the club looking for £60m but likely to achieve around half that. Fulham, Forest and Sunderland are all caught in the middle market.
“The issue is not that brands don’t want Premier League exposure, but non-betting brands generally do not value the exposure as aggressively as betting companies.”
The top-flight clubs to have found replacements for betting sponsors are Bournemouth, Brentford, Everton and Crystal Palace.
Tech was among the sectors tipped to fill the void left by betting brands but, while Palace’s new sponsor is AI company Temporal, another, IFS, has not renewed its brief shirt deal with Chelsea.
“Some assumed AI or crypto brands would simply step in but, although the former have appeared on Palace and Chelsea shirts, it does not appear to be a like-for-like situation,” says Hopkins.
“Ultimately, it looks like increased supply is not being met by increased demand and sponsorship at levels below the genuinely elite is genuinely more price-elastic. So clubs still in the market may well be facing a shortfall.”