FCA Warns Football Clubs on Unauthorised Crypto Firm Sponsorships

The FCA's October 2023 financial promotions regime for cryptoassets — which made the UK one of the strictest jurisdictions globally for crypto marketing — created a direct compliance trap that football clubs are only now fully reckoning with. Any club that displays a crypto firm's branding, accepts a shirt sponsorship, or runs co-branded social content for a firm not registered with the FCA under the Money Laundering Regulations (MLR) or not authorised under FSMA risks becoming a conduit for illegal financial promotions. The FCA has made clear it will pursue clubs, not just the crypto firms themselves.

TL;DR

• Displaying or communicating a financial promotion for an unauthorised crypto firm is itself a criminal offence under s.21 FSMA 2000, regardless of whether the club knew the firm was unregistered.
• The FCA's 2023 crypto financial promotions rules require all qualifying cryptoasset promotions to be approved by an FCA-authorised person or issued by a registered cryptoasset business.
• Football clubs are "communicators" under the regime — shirt logos, stadium hoardings, and social posts all count as financial promotions if they promote a qualifying cryptoasset activity.
• The FCA maintains a public Warning List of unauthorised firms; clubs must check it before signing any crypto sponsorship.
• Penalties include unlimited fines, criminal prosecution, and reputational damage that dwarfs any sponsorship fee.

What This Regulation Actually Requires

The s.21 FSMA Financial Promotion Restriction

Section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 prohibits any person from communicating an invitation or inducement to engage in investment activity unless the communication is made by or approved by an FCA-authorised person. Since January 2020, cryptoassets have been brought progressively within this perimeter. From 8 October 2023, the FCA's PS23/6 rules made the financial promotions regime fully applicable to qualifying cryptoassets — meaning Bitcoin, Ether, and most tokens used in DeFi or exchange contexts.

A "communication" is broad. It covers anything that could be seen by a UK person: a shirt worn on a pitch broadcast to millions, a stadium LED board, an Instagram post by the club's official account, or a press release announcing the partnership.

The Cryptoasset Registration Requirement

Separately, firms carrying on cryptoasset exchange or custodian wallet activities in the UK must be registered with the FCA under the MLR 2017 (as amended). The FCA's register of cryptoasset businesses is public. As of mid-2026, the FCA has refused or cancelled registration for a significant number of applicants — including several that subsequently sought sports sponsorship deals as a brand-building exercise in jurisdictions where they lacked regulatory standing.

An unauthorised firm cannot lawfully approve its own financial promotions. It must either obtain approval from an FCA-authorised person under s.21(2)(b) FSMA, or the promotion must fall within a specific exemption. Most crypto sponsorship arrangements do not qualify for any exemption.

What Counts as a "Financial Promotion" in a Sponsorship Context

Not every mention of a crypto brand is a financial promotion. The test is whether the communication constitutes an invitation or inducement to engage in investment activity. Shirt sponsorship that simply displays a logo — with no call to action, no product description, no QR code — sits in a grey zone. The FCA's guidance in FG23/3 (October 2023) makes clear that context matters: if the logo is accompanied by a strapline like "Trade Crypto Now" or links to a trading platform, it almost certainly crosses the line. Clubs that allow perimeter boards to display URLs or slogans alongside a crypto brand's name are on very thin ice.

The "Approver" Liability Gap

Since 7 February 2024, firms approving financial promotions for unauthorised third parties must themselves be specifically authorised to do so under the FCA's new s.21 gateway. This closed a loophole where any FCA-authorised firm could approve a crypto promotion without specialist oversight. Clubs that believed they had covered themselves by getting a generic FCA-authorised firm to "sign off" the sponsorship arrangement may find that approval is now invalid if the approver lacked the specific s.21 gateway permission.

What This Means for Your Company

If you're a football club's GC or compliance officer, the risk profile here is asymmetric. The sponsorship fee from a mid-tier crypto exchange might be £2–5 million per season. The FCA's maximum fine for a financial promotion breach is unlimited. Criminal prosecution under s.25 FSMA carries up to two years' imprisonment for individuals.

Clubs in the Championship and lower leagues face a particular trap. Premier League clubs have legal teams that run due diligence on sponsors. Smaller clubs, desperate for revenue, may accept a crypto sponsorship with minimal checks. The FCA has historically focused enforcement on the most egregious cases, but its 2023–2025 enforcement data shows a clear escalation in crypto-related actions, including against intermediaries and promoters rather than just the underlying firms.

For crypto firms themselves, using a football sponsorship to build brand recognition in the UK while operating without FCA registration is not a grey area. It's a deliberate circumvention strategy the FCA has explicitly flagged. The FCA's Warning List additions in 2024 and 2025 included several firms that had active sports sponsorship arrangements in the UK at the time of listing.

Lawyers advising either side of a sponsorship deal need to treat FCA registration status as a condition precedent — not a warranty buried in schedule 5.

How to Operationalize

Pre-signing due diligence checklist:

1. Check the FCA Register — Confirm the crypto firm appears on the FCA's public register of cryptoasset businesses under MLR 2017. A firm registered only for AML purposes is not automatically authorised to issue financial promotions.

2. Check the FCA Warning List — Search the firm's full legal name, trading name, and any parent entities. Do this at signing and repeat quarterly throughout the contract term.

3. Classify every deliverable — Go through the sponsorship agreement line by line. For each deliverable (shirt logo, LED board, social post, press release, matchday programme ad), assess whether it constitutes a financial promotion under the s.21 test. Get written legal advice on each category.

4. Require a financial promotions compliance warranty — The agreement should include a representation that the sponsor is either FCA-registered/authorised or has obtained valid approval from an FCA-authorised person holding the s.21 gateway permission for each specific promotion type.

5. Build in a termination right — If the sponsor loses FCA registration or appears on the Warning List, the club needs a clean contractual exit without penalty. This is non-negotiable.

6. Establish a promotions review process — Any co-branded content, social media post, or campaign material should pass through a compliance review before publication. Designate a named individual responsible for sign-off.

7. Train commercial and marketing staff — The people negotiating and executing sponsorship deals need to understand that "it's just a logo" is not a safe harbour. One social post with a trading link can trigger liability.

8. Document everything — Retain records of FCA register checks, legal advice, and approval decisions. If the FCA investigates, demonstrating a good-faith compliance process is your primary mitigation.

Common Mistakes and How to Avoid Them

Mistake 1: Treating FCA registration as a one-time check. Firms can lose registration mid-contract. A club that checked at signing but not again six months later may find itself promoting a firm that's been removed from the register. Fix: calendar quarterly checks tied to the contract term.

Mistake 2: Assuming a logo-only arrangement is safe. The FCA's FG23/3 guidance is explicit that context determines whether something is a financial promotion. A logo on a shirt broadcast to 2 million viewers, combined with the firm's URL visible on the club's website sponsor page, is likely a promotion. Fix: get specific legal advice on each deliverable, not a blanket opinion.

Mistake 3: Relying on the sponsor's own legal sign-off. Sponsors have an obvious incentive to tell clubs their promotions are compliant. An unauthorised firm's in-house counsel saying "we've checked and we're fine" is worthless. Fix: require the sponsor to produce written confirmation from an independent FCA-authorised approver holding the s.21 gateway permission.

Mistake 4: Ignoring the approver gateway change. Several clubs and their advisers are still operating on pre-February 2024 assumptions about who can approve a crypto financial promotion. The gateway requirement is real and the FCA has confirmed it applies to approvals made after 7 February 2024. Fix: verify the approver's FCA permissions specifically include the cryptoasset financial promotion approval gateway.

Mistake 5: Treating this as a crypto-firm problem only. The s.21 restriction applies to the communicator. The club is the communicator. The FCA can and will pursue the club if it communicated an illegal promotion, even if the crypto firm was the primary wrongdoer. Fix: accept that the club has independent liability and structure compliance accordingly.

FAQ

Q: Does this apply to shirt sleeve sponsors, not just main shirt sponsors? A: Yes. The financial promotions regime doesn't distinguish by placement size or prominence. Any branding visible in a communication that constitutes a financial promotion is caught. Sleeve sponsors, training kit sponsors, and stadium naming rights are all in scope if the underlying firm is a cryptoasset business.

Q: What if the crypto firm is regulated in another jurisdiction — say, MiCA-compliant in the EU? A: MiCA authorisation does not confer UK rights. The UK left the EU's regulatory perimeter at Brexit. A firm authorised under MiCA in Germany has no passporting rights into the UK and must separately register with the FCA under the MLR 2017 to carry on cryptoasset activities in the UK. EU authorisation is irrelevant to the s.21 analysis.

Q: Can the club itself become an FCA-authorised approver to cover its sponsors? A: Technically possible, but practically inadvisable. Becoming an authorised approver requires FCA authorisation, ongoing compliance obligations, and the FCA expects approvers to have genuine expertise in the products they're approving. A football club approving crypto financial promotions without deep crypto compliance capability would face significant regulatory scrutiny. The better answer is to require sponsors to bring their own compliant approval chain.

Q: What's the FCA's enforcement posture — are they actually pursuing clubs? A: The FCA has not yet publicly announced a completed enforcement action specifically against a football club for crypto sponsorship. However, the FCA's 2023 and 2024 supervisory letters to sports bodies, combined with its broader escalation of crypto financial promotions enforcement (over 450 alerts issued in the 12 months following October 2023), signal that clubs are firmly in scope. The absence of a completed case is not a green light.

Q: Does this apply to esports teams and gaming organisations with crypto sponsors? A: Yes, and potentially with greater intensity. Esports audiences skew younger, which triggers the FCA's specific concern about promotions targeting under-25s. The FCA's consumer protection rules under COBS 4.12A include specific restrictions on promotions to high-risk investment customers, and esports platforms may have a higher proportion of such users.

---

Sources

• Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, s.21 and s.25 (HM Government legislation)
• FCA Policy Statement PS23/6, "Financial promotion rules for cryptoassets" (October 2023)
• FCA Finalised Guidance FG23/3, "Guidance on cryptoasset financial promotions" (October 2023)
• FCA Register of Cryptoasset Businesses and Warning List (FCA.org.uk, updated continuously)

---

Disclaimer

This article is produced by BizLegal-AI Intelligence Desk for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create a solicitor-client or attorney-client relationship. Regulatory positions described reflect the authors' reading of publicly available materials as of the date of publication and may not reflect subsequent regulatory developments. Readers should obtain independent legal advice tailored to their specific circumstances before taking or refraining from any action. BizLegal-AI makes no warranty as to the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the information contained herein.