Renewed Pressure for a Tube-Wide Gambling Ads Ban in London

Renewed Pressure for a Tube-Wide Gambling Ads Ban in London

A new phase in London's long-running debate over gambling advertising has taken shape, as additional boroughs move to support a proposed ban across the Underground network. Nearly five years after Mayor Sadiq Khan announced his intention to remove such advertising from one of the city's most visible public spaces, councillors across the capital are again raising the issue, arguing that the time has come for a concrete policy shift.

The renewed discussion follows the decision by five more councils, Barnet, Brent, Enfield, Hackney, and Lewisham, to formally join the Coalition to End Gambling Ads (CEGA). The coalition, established at the beginning of 2025, was created to bring together local authorities and civil society groups seeking to reduce the prevalence of gambling promotions. The Underground has been a focal point because of its high passenger volume and its role in shaping everyday public visibility for commercial messaging.

This move builds on steps taken by Haringey Council, which became the first borough to join the coalition in January. The borough's early involvement provided the initial political momentum that now appears to be expanding into a broader alliance. Barnet, Brent, Enfield, and Lewisham have not only joined CEGA but have also been vocal critics of the concentration of high-street betting venues across London's commercial districts. Their concerns relate to both advertising saturation and the physical presence of gambling outlets in local communities.

Interestingly, the concern about growth in high-street venues does not align with sector data. The Gambling Commission's most recent report shows that the number of land-based gambling premises has declined steadily, falling from 8,872 in 2009 to 5,825 as of March 2025. Despite this downward trend, these councils continue to argue that the existing density of betting outlets remains a point of tension within their communities, particularly in lower-income areas where such venues tend to cluster.

In April, several of the same boroughs took part in a separate initiative urging the government to grant local councils greater authority to reject planning applications for new gambling venues. The proposal included a call for local governments to have more influence over where gambling advertisements are placed. That campaign gathered thirty-eight council signatures, signalling widespread interest in greater local autonomy over both physical venues and advertising exposure.

Brent has emerged as a particularly active participant in this discussion. The borough has commissioned studies assessing the social impacts of gambling and has consistently pressed for more policy tools to address related concerns. It currently has seventy-seven licensed betting permits, matching the number in Enfield. Haringey follows with sixty-three, Barnet with sixty-one, Lewisham with fifty-three, and Hackney with forty-three. Hackney had not taken part in the earlier April campaign but has now aligned itself with CEGA's broader objectives.

The joining of these boroughs adds weight to an already visible debate. Their participation marks a shift from isolated local concerns to a coordinated citywide discussion about the role of gambling advertising in public spaces. The Underground, with its daily passenger numbers and its function as a transit hub for all demographics, is an especially sensitive location. Councillors argue that a ban would signal a responsible recalibration of what types of commercial messages should appear in a shared urban environment.

Political timing also plays a role in the renewed momentum. The national rise in gambling tax, announced last week, is expected to push major operators, including Evoke (William Hill), Flutter (Paddy Power), Entain (Ladbrokes), and Betfred, to reduce the number of their physical shops as part of their cost-cutting strategies. This potential contraction could change how the industry allocates its promotional budgets and contribute to new advertising patterns in urban areas. Local authorities view this period of adjustment as an opportunity to revisit old policies and establish new guidelines before the market adapts in ways that are difficult to reverse.

The debate does not revolve solely around public health concerns, though those concerns remain. Councils involved in the coalition also frame the issue as one of public policy coherence. They argue that while national legislation has reshaped online gambling oversight, the visibility of advertising in physical public spaces has not been updated to reflect these regulatory changes. The Underground-operated by Transport for London, functions under an advertising model designed long before online wagering became a dominant force in the sector. Councillors suggest that a more current approach is needed, one that aligns public transport advertising with modern regulatory standards and community expectations.

CEGA's coalition-building rests on this merging of practical, regulatory, and social concerns. Its message focuses on the cumulative effect of repeated exposure rather than isolated advertisements. For many councils, the Underground represents one of the most direct forms of exposure, with commuters encountering ads multiple times a day, often in enclosed environments where visibility is unavoidable.