Gambling on TfL: Why Advertising Still Exists

A mayor promises to ban betting ads, yet the number of those ads doubles under his watch. A report by The Guardian states that Sadiq Khan pledged during his mayoral campaign of 2021 to order Transport for London to extend the junk food ad ban to online casinos and bookmakers to address the effects of addiction. Instead of a cleaner transit network, commuters now see more betting promotions than they did before the promise. The city transit authority collected over £660,000 from these campaigns in a single year, even as addiction rates in the capital soared past national averages.

This delay creates a situation where public health goals clash with the daily need for advertising revenue. While City Hall claims it waits for national guidance, local activists and residents watch the number of betting prompts grow on buses and trains. This tension defines the current state of London’s commute. The city faces a choice between the small financial gain of betting ads and the long-term health of its citizens. Legal fears and political stalls explain why this pledge remains unfulfilled.

The Financial Reality of Gambling Advertising on TfL

City officials often prioritize existing revenue streams over new health policies when the legal path forward looks blurry. Freedom of information requests analyzed by The Guardian show that gambling institutions have run over 500 campaigns since Khan's 2021 manifesto pledge, costing £4.6 million. The report notes that across all of Khan’s mayoral terms, companies spent more than £7.5 million on TfL services like the underground, buses, and trams.

Data published by The Guardian reveals that the network hosted 223 different gambling campaigns in the most recent recording period. This figure more than doubles the previous year's count while a stalemate continues with Westminster over advertising policy. How many gambling ads are on the London Underground? Recent data shows that TfL ran over 220 gambling campaigns in a single year, doubling the previous year's volume despite the Mayor's ban pledge. The betting industry has ramped up its presence on the network rather than backing away.

Critics like Rob Blackie point out the irony of this growth. He notes that while large-scale infrastructure projects take years, removing posters and digital ads should happen quickly. The delay has now lasted three years, leaving the 2021 manifesto promise largely ignored in practice. Meanwhile, the revenue remains a tiny fraction of TfL’s overall budget. A London Assembly budget response confirms that TfL earned £4.3 billion in fares revenue during the 2022-23 period. The portion coming from gambling promotions accounts for less than 1% of that total. This small percentage raises questions about why the city hesitates to cut ties with the betting industry.

Why London Faces a Unique Gambling Crisis

High living costs and dense transit networks turn every daily commute into a high-pressure sales pitch for betting apps. London serves as the front line for the UK’s gambling crisis. Statistics show that 5.6% of Londoners experience gambling harm, which is nearly double the national average of 2.9%. Krupesh Hirani highlights that the cost of living and high housing prices drive residents toward "quick fix" financial solutions. People see a betting app as a way out of a tight spot, only to find themselves in an addictive spiral.

Health inequality data shows that betting ads affect minority ethnic groups and low-income demographics more than other groups. These communities often rely most heavily on public transport, meaning they encounter more gambling advertising than those who drive private cars.

The Gambling Commission’s annual report indicates that nearly half of adults in London participate in some form of gambling each year. The study finds that 48% of adults gambled within the past four weeks. The volume of ads on the Tube and buses ensures that these individuals cannot escape the temptation during their commute to work or school. Is there a ban on gambling ads in the UK? The Guardian reports that no national ban currently exists on gambling ads because the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has no active project to link advertising specifically to harm. Without a local ban, Londoners remain exposed to thousands of prompts every day.

The Struggle to Define Gambling Harm

Lawyers often block health policies when those policies lack a strict national dictionary definition for what constitutes "harmful" behavior. This legal hurdle shields the betting industry. Sadiq Khan successfully banned "junk food" ads—those high in fat, sugar, and salt (HFSS)—because clear metrics exist for those products. Calories and sugar grams provide a solid legal footing for a ban. Gambling lacks a similar, universally accepted metric for "harm."

As noted in a London Assembly Health Committee report, the Mayor’s representatives noted the minimal evidence connecting advertising to gambling harm and pointed to the lack of a legal definition for "harmful gambling" ads. Without a national definition, TfL faces the threat of expensive lawsuits from betting firms. Industry giants have massive legal budgets and would likely sue the city for lost revenue or discrimination against their legal business. Prof Rebecca Cassidy notes that measuring the direct link between a specific ad and a specific habit is difficult. However, she argues that the industry's significant marketing spend proves that ads work. They wouldn't spend the money if it didn't change behavior.

Nick Harvey of the campaign group "Clean Up Gambling" argues that the city does not need to wait for national guidance. He points out that local councils in places like Bristol have already banned ads for gambling on council-owned spaces without facing a legal meltdown. These councils recognize that waiting for the central government only leads to more ruined families. Seven London boroughs have already requested an immediate ban on the TfL network, showing a growing appetite for local action despite the legal risks.

The Myth of the Impending National Review

Policy delays happen when one government office waits for a report that another office has no plans to write. Sadiq Khan has frequently cited a need to wait for the results of a central government probe into gambling. He suggests that national legislation will provide the framework London needs to enact its ban. However, the DCMS tells a different story.

A spokesperson for DCMS recently clarified that the government has no current plans or projects to legislate ad restrictions. Instead, the government expects the gambling industry to maintain higher standards and work with the Advertising Standards Authority. This creates a total impasse. The Mayor waits for a review that the government says isn't coming. While this political ping-pong continues, the ads remain on the walls.

This contradiction suggests a lack of political will rather than a lack of information. The evidence review commissioned from Sheffield and Glasgow universities in 2022 returned "insufficient evidence" for a direct link between ads and addiction. Critics argue that "absence of evidence" does not mean "evidence of absence" of harm. They believe the city uses the lack of a "perfect" study as an excuse to keep the revenue flowing. Meanwhile, between 1 million and 2 million people in the UK struggle with gambling, many of whom live in London.

Economic Contributions vs Public Health Risks

Markets defend their presence by linking their survival to thousands of jobs and millions in tax revenue. The gambling industry contributes significantly to the UK economy, which makes any ban a sensitive political topic. Betting firms support approximately 11,000 jobs and contribute £506 million to the economy annually. The Treasury also relies on this sector, collecting £1.2 billion in taxes from online casinos alone.

There is even talk of the government increasing the duty on these casinos from 21% to 50%. This creates a financial incentive for the state to keep the industry healthy. The industry also points to its voluntary "whistle-to-whistle" ban on sports ads before 9 pm as proof that it can regulate itself. They claim that 20% of their advertising content now focuses on "safe gambling" messages.

However, these "safe" messages often serve as a brand reminder rather than a deterrent. How much does the gambling industry spend on advertising? Research cited by The Guardian suggests the industry spends about £2 billion annually on UK advertising, though the Betting and Gaming Council claims the figure stays closer to £1 billion. When an industry spends billions to attract customers, a small "play responsibly" label at the bottom of a poster does little to stop an addict. The economic benefit to the Treasury does not cover the social cost of addiction, which includes healthcare, lost productivity, and family breakdowns.

The Lifelong Damage of Early Exposure

Childhood exposure to betting brands creates a lifelong habit that professional success cannot easily break. Many addicts trace their problems back to the ads they saw as teenagers. Frankie Graham, a campaigner with personal experience, shared how his gambling harm began at age 16. He spent twenty years dealing with total life disruption because of an addiction that started with early exposure.

This exposure happens every time a child takes the bus to school. When gambling advertising becomes a background element of a child's daily life, it normalizes a high-risk activity. Frankie Graham explains that his addiction hurt his wallet and damaged his entire social and professional circle. He lost years of his life to a "normal" activity that the city helps promote.

Public health experts argue that transit bans offer the best way to reduce this exposure. People cannot "opt-out" of seeing an ad on the side of a bus or on a station platform. Unlike television or the internet, where some filters exist, public transport forces the message onto everyone. Prof Cassidy believes that banning these ads represents a major public health gain. If the city treats gambling with the same seriousness as junk food or body-shaming imagery—both of which are banned on TfL—it could prevent the next generation from entering the addictive cycle.

The Precedent Set by Junk Food Bans

Success in one area of public health often highlights the failure to act in another. Sadiq Khan rightly takes credit for his work on junk food restrictions. In 2019, he ordered TfL to ban ads for products high in sugar, salt and fats. This policy aimed to tackle childhood obesity, and early data suggests it changed how Londoners shop. The Mayor recognized that "life-shattering" health issues require bold intervention.

The Mayor can ban a casino ad to protect a family's savings just as he banned a burger ad to protect a child's waistline. The junk food ban faced similar industry pushback and claims of lost revenue, yet the city moved forward. The betting industry currently enjoys a level of protection that the food industry lost years ago.

The upcoming Premier League ban on front-of-shirt sponsors shows that even the most profitable sports league in the world recognizes the harm. They will implement this change starting in the 2026-27 season. This move by the private sector makes the public sector's delay look even worse. A city transit authority with a £4.3 billion budget can walk away from betting money if a global football league can do the same. The precedent exists; the city simply needs to follow it.

The Cost of Inaction on London’s Transit

The real cost of delaying the ban on gambling advertising appears in the lives of the 5.6% of Londoners struggling with addiction. While City Hall collects £663,640 in annual gambling revenue, the social cost of those ads likely reaches into the tens of millions. The gap between the 2021 promise and the current reality shows a failure of execution.

Waiting for a national review that does not exist serves only the betting firms. Local councils and international sports leagues are already moving to protect the public. London’s transit network remains one of the last major holdouts where betting apps can shout at commuters without restriction. The Mayor has the power to act now, just as he did with ads for junk food.

The current system relies on the hope that Londoners will ignore the 223 gambling campaigns they see every year. History and data suggest they won't. Until the city removes these prompts, the transit network will continue to act as a funnel for the gambling industry. Resolving this contradiction requires the Mayor to fulfill his original pledge and treat gambling harm as the public health crisis it truly is. Persisting with gambling advertising on TfL only ensures that the rate of harm in London stays twice as high as the rest of the country.