Money-laundering, scamming, cyber slavery compounds and appalling human rights abuses are no obstacles for Premier League clubs looking for betting partners – or the UK regulator.
By Philippe Auclair
It took a long time for the Great Britain Gambling Commission to take action against TGP Europe, the Isle of Man-based agency linked to jailed Macau gambling tycoon Alvin Chau. Almost four years had passed since Josimar first reported on TGP and how it enabled illegal Asian-facing sports betting companies to become ubiquitous in English football when the GBGC imposed a fine of over 3 million pounds sterling on the company.
TGP chose to surrender their licence. All the brand domain names they had registered with the GBGC became “inactive” and therefore unlicensed in the United Kingdom. These names will be familiar to followers of English football: FUN88 (then official betting partners of Newcastle United), Kaiyun (Nottingham Forest and Crystal Palace) and the ubiquitous 8XBet (Manchester City, Ipswich, Leicester, Bournemouth and Chelsea), alongside many others.
In May, four Premier League clubs (Bournemouth, Fulham, Newcastle, and Wolves) and newly-promoted Burnley were warned by the GBGC as to their future dealings with similar illegal operators, with club officials notified that they risked being fined and even imprisoned if they carried on promoting unlicensed online gambling platforms. Another three (Everton, Leicester and Nottingham Forest) had already been slapped on the wrist in February.
It had taken a long time, but they’d got there. The message to England’s premier clubs seemed clear: just stop. Except they did not; quite the opposite in fact.
No licence, no problem
Five of the seventeen Premier League clubs who have already ‘revealed’ their kits for the 2025-26 season will display the names of illegal Asian-facing operators in full view of the competition’s global audience. They are Burnley (96[.]com and their “training wear partner” BK8), Bournemouth (BJ88), Crystal Palace (NET88, with Kaiyun remaining their sleeve sponsor), Wolverhampton Wanderers (DEBET) and promoted Sunderland (W88, not a TGP client, but also listed as “inactive” in the GBGC registry).
Everton have also stuck with crypto casino Stake, which operates outside of as well as in Asia. Moreover, other clubs such as Aston Villa (Nova88) and Chelsea (8XBet) also have “official Asian betting partners” whose names do not appear on the clubs’ branded material, but are flashed on the LED perimeter boards in their stadiums. More may follow. Two of the three clubs yet to disclose the name of their shirt sponsor for the forthcoming season had deals in place with illegal Asian-facing bookmakers in 2024-25: Nottingham Forest (Kaiyun) and Fulham (SBOTOP).
Wolverhampton Wanderers 2025-26 home strip.
Crystal Palace 2025-26 home strip.
Most of these operators had registered UK domain names through TGP. None of these domain names is valid anymore. How can they still be present in English football, then?
This is because of a double loophole.
First, the GBGC takes the view that mere ‘partnerships’, such as Aston Villa’s with Nova88 and Chelsea’s with 8XBet, do not fall within its remit, as the name of the partners in question does not appear on the club’s branded material, such as jerseys, sportswear or physical boards within their stadiums, even if they are flashed on their LED perimeter boards.
The devil, as usual, is in the details.
The GBGC did use very forceful language in the formal warnings it issued to PL clubs in the spring; but it stopped short of imposing a blanket prohibition of all commercial relationships with unlicensed operators. What it did was clarify how these relationships were supposed to work. It would be up to the clubs, and the clubs alone, to guarantee that they had taken all the necessary precautions to ensure they’d teamed up with appropriate partners.
Second, and far more importantly, the litmus test is whether the front-of-shirt or sleeve sponsors take bets from UK-based customers or not. As their websites are geo-blocked in Britain, the clubs can argue that they respect the GBGC’s regulations.
A leap of faith is needed to take that argument seriously. To quote from the letter sent by the GBGC in May: “[the clubs] will want to continue to satisfy [themselves] that [their] sponsorship and associated advertising arrangements are legal and do not present a reputational risk to your sport (our italics).”
“Satisfying themselves”
This is a tough ask, given the “reputation” those operators have garnered in the past few years, like Kaiyun, a phoenix brand of the Chinese criminal organisation Yabo, 8XBet, which used to operate from a cyber slavery compound in Cambodia, as revealed by Josimar, or BK8, whom we evidenced to be linked with another infamous Cambodian compound, the Victory Paradise Casino complex.
The letter went on: “we would advise that any organisation engaging in sponsorship from brands that do not hold a Commission licence manage their exposure to risk. This includes satisfying themselves as to the source of the funds for the arrangement.”
The key words here are “satisfying themselves”, as the true “source of the funds” is never, ever revealed. The overwhelming majority of these sponsorship deals are brokered by intermediaries and marketing rights agencies such as Sportfive and ISG, and lesser-known companies like Hashetage, SportQuake or MIC, who keep the tightest of lids on the identity of their clients and their own involvement as go-betweens. The former head of commercial operations of a leading Premier League club told Josimar that that the payments they had received from a past Asian betting partner had come from a variety of accounts, none of which was related to the operator in question, and that this was “par for the course” when dealing with these shadowy bookmakers.
Who their ultimate beneficial owners are is a question to which investigators, betting experts and law enforcement agencies have long tried but failed to find an answer. How clubs not known for the thoroughness of their due diligence processes could “satisfy themselves” they’re dealing with bona fide businesses, heaven only knows. What is commonly agreed is that most if not all of the gambling companies they close deals with will ultimately be controlled by organised crime; but as long as the letter of the regulations is respected, this does not appear to constitute a problem.
Anywhere but Britain
The GBGC regulations state that “organisations engaging in sponsor arrangements with an unlicensed brand must ensure that online gambling activity for that unlicensed brand is blocked and inaccessible to consumers in Great Britain”. This represents a significant shift in the Commission’s approach, who previously insisted that the “brands” should have some kind of legitimate presence on the British market before their names could appear in PL stadiums. This is why companies like TGP and Celton Manx (which “powered” Fulham’s sponsor SBOTOP, and have surrendered their Isle of Man licence) could offer so-called “White Label” solutions to their Asian clients, registering up .co.uk domain names on their behalf. The websites were rudimentary, when they existed at all; but the box was ticked, and those brands could now be displayed on the shirts of PL clubs.
The long and the short of it is that this is not necessary anymore: illegality is no longer an obstacle to compliance, and too bad if “illegality”, here, is a euphemism for “criminality”. As long as it all happens out of sight, beyond Britain’s borders, it’s fine, despite the money-laundering, the scamming and the appalling human rights abuse which are the usual companions of illegal sports betting.
The GBGC’s Helen Rhodes recently praised her organisation’s decisive action against “White Label” companies; what she didn’t add is that there is no longer any need to use the TGPs of this world – as long as the illegal brands are not accessible to British customers.
But they are; all you need to access them is use a Virtual Private Network (VPN), which, according to a recent Forbes poll, 49% of all UK internet users do on at least one of their digital devices. All it took Josimar to access NET88, DEBET and BJ88 was to locate our VPN in a far eastern jurisdiction. A BJ88 mirror page even displayed the logo of the Great Britain Gambling Commission alongside those of HM Government of Gibraltar and the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA), with which it has never held a licence.
BJ88 Vietnamese mirror site showing the logo of the MGA and of the Great Britain Gambling Commission.
So it’s business as usual for the Premier League and its illegal partners. 2025-26, the last season in which the names of betting companies, legal or not, can be displayed on club jerseys in England, will be another bonanza year; and as the ban will only affect front-of-shirt sponsorships, but not sleeve partnerships, LED perimeter advertising and endorsements, it is set to continue that way, with the tacit blessing of the regulator.
We asked the GBGC a series of questions related to the GBGC’s regulations on the suitability of online betting operators as partners/sponsors of Premier League clubs and about sponsors which are unlicensed in their target markets.
“Is the GBGC satisfied that these clubs, several of which had been warned as to their future dealings with unlicensed operators, comply with its regulations?
Though the websites of these operators are geo-blocked in Britain, UK customers can still open accounts and place bets on them by using a VPN. Does this not constitute in itself a breach of GBGC regulations?
Which view does the GBGC take of “Asian betting partners” or “training wear partners” such as Nova88 (Aston Villa), 8XBet (Chelsea and others) and BK8 (Burnley)? Can clubs enter in commercial partnerships with those brands without breaching GBGC regulations?
Is the GBGC happy with clubs advertising unlicensed operators on the LED perimeter boards of their stadiums?”
A senior communication manager at the GBGC provided this response:
“Our webpage on ‘sports sponsorship and advertising‘ explains that organisations engaging in sponsor arrangements with an unlicensed brand must ensure that online gambling activity for that unlicensed brand is blocked and inaccessible to consumers in Great Britain.”
