Darts Star’s Prize Draw Deals Expose Regulatory Gap
Darts player Stephen Bunting has come under fire this week after brand deals he holds with two prize draw firms were queried in the wake of an interview in which he disclosed a past £90,000 gambling debt. The criticism, aired on social media after the interview was published, has drawn fresh attention to a category of promotion that sits outside Gambling Commission rules altogether.
What’s actually changed
Nothing has changed in the rules themselves, but the row has thrown a spotlight on how they work.
Bunting, currently ranked number 10 in the world, told The Guardian how he found himself in £90,000 worth of debt due to his betting activities.
He has come under fire for signing brand deals with prize draw firms after the interview discussing his struggles with gambling.
After returning to the PDC Premier League in 2025, Bunting signed a deal in February that year for prize draw firm Stealth Competitions to become a brand partner “for the Premier League and beyond”.
Stealth Competitions no longer appears on the front of his shirt, though it did as recently as the 2026 World Darts Championship, and he now has Diamond Draws Competitions as a partner, having announced that deal in January with a promoted discount code now on his match shirts.
He has also sported the logos of Betfred, BetMGM, bet365 and Paddy Power this year, though these have been for competition title sponsorship reasons rather than personal endorsement.
The core issue is definitional.
Prize draw operators are not legally classed as gambling in the UK, though they are only open to residents in the UK aged 18 years or over.
That means they fall outside the Gambling Act and the Gambling Commission’s licensing regime entirely.
A total of 189 operators have recently signed the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s Voluntary Code of Conduct for Prize Draw Operators, as gambling harm prevention charities become more concerned that players are using prize draw sites in exactly the same way they would use traditional gambling.
What it means for you
If you’ve seen prize draw adverts promising cash jackpots or prizes for a small entry fee, it’s worth understanding that these products are not gambling in the eyes of the law, and so none of the safer-gambling architecture you’d expect from a licensed casino or bookmaker applies. There’s no requirement for deposit limits, no GamStop coverage, no affordability checks and no statutory levy contribution, because the operator isn’t licensed by the Gambling Commission in the first place. The DCMS code is voluntary, meaning compliance depends on individual firms choosing to sign up rather than being legally compelled to. If you’re using discount codes or promotional offers from these sites in the way you might use a betting promotion, the protections you’d rely on with a regulated operator simply aren’t there.
The bigger picture
The episode sits alongside a wider pattern of concern about how gambling-adjacent products are marketed through sport, and about sportspeople with lived experience of harm being used to front them.
Parallels have been drawn to a recent case involving Everton FC player Martin Sherif, who was charged for breaching the Football Association’s betting rules after allegedly placing 61 bets on football matches between 20 November 2024 and 12 February 2026.
That case, too, unfolded while the player’s club carried shirt sponsorship from an operator outside the licensed system. Together, these episodes underline a recurring theme in UK gambling policy debate: reforms since the Gambling Act White Paper have tightened rules for licensed casinos and bookmakers, but products that fall just outside the statutory definition of gambling continue to operate with far lighter obligations, even when they target the same audiences and mimic the same mechanics.
Sources
