The UK is set to introduce new laws from January 5, 2026, that will significantly affect the implementation of sponsorship deals for less healthy food and drink products. The rules are complex and have wide-ranging implications for sports rights holders and sponsors. We've summarised the key points below, but if you'd like to understand the nuances please get in touch!
Scope of the new restrictions:
- Online advertising: paid-for online advertisements for identifiable less healthy food and drink products will be prohibited in the UK.
- TV watershed restrictions: Ads for identifiable less healthy products must not appear on TV or regulated video-on-demand platforms between 5:30 am and 9:00 pm.
Definition of less healthy foods:
- Foods and drinks are assessed using the UK government's Nutrient Profiling Model (NPM). Products scoring above certain thresholds, and within particular categories of product, are classified as less healthy.
Exemptions:
- Brand advertising: Ads featuring the name or logo of a well-known brand associated with less healthy products, but not the product itself, are likely to be exempt. There has been some confusion about this point, but we are waiting for new regulations to exempt and define "brand advertising".
- Owned media: Advertisements placed by a food/drink business itself on its own media channels are not covered by the online restrictions. (Note that this rule should also allow stadium owners to advertise their in-venue food and beverage offering, provided this advertising isn't promoting sponsors' or others' products and that sponsor/third party hasn't paid for that privilege as part of the sponsorship or supply deal).
- SMEs: There is an exemption for SME food/drink businesses, but this is unlikely to benefit any significant sponsor.
Key implications for sports rights holders and sponsorship:
Any online advertising of less healthy products which is delivered by a rights-holder as part of a sponsorship deal commitment will be caught by the new rules (that is, the advertising has been paid for by the sponsoring brand via the rights fee, or in-kind consideration).
TV advertising or programme sponsorship for less healthy products which relate to a sports sponsorship deal, will also be subject to the watershed restrictions. This is most relevant for rights-holders selling bumper ads to coverage of their events as part of a sponsorship package, or when clearing TV ads for their sponsor.
If the sponsor has a low-calorie, or low fat brand which isn't classified as a less healthy food, it's possible that a work-around using that brand could be agreed with sponsors.
Given that brand advertising will likely be exempt, and "owned media" is exempt, this will lead to some odd results. For example:
- A rights-holders' website page that lists all sponsors and only shows the logos of the relevant brand(s) (even if that logo is associated very closely with an in-scope product) should be permitted.
- A social post which is delivered as a sponsorship right and which shows an athlete consuming the sponsors' in-scope product is likely to be prohibited in the UK.
- Images of athletes drinking an in-scope product after competition, may be acceptable if used within pure editorial contexts by the rights-holder, and without commitment for such use to the sponsor, but if the sponsor is guaranteed certain online coverage of such images, this may well be prohibited.
- A team title sponsorship may be acceptable under the anticipated exemption for brand advertising, but images of the actual product itself, shown in online ads and social posts etc of the rights-holder, may not be acceptable if this is a paid-for contractual commitment.
Enforcement:
- The person who paid for the advertising is responsible for a breach of the online advertising ban, and the relevant service provider (for example, the broadcaster or on-demand platform) will be responsible for a breach of the watershed rules. As such, in most sponsorship-related breaches, the brand, and not the rights-holder, will directly be subject to enforcement.
- Ofcom and the ASA will be responsible for enforcing the rules, with significant fines possible, but fines are likely to be reserved for the most serious breaches and/or failures to comply with the ASA's demands to withdraw offending ads.
- Rights holders should also be alert to contractual liability. Brands wanting to be fully compliant may seek to put obligations on the rights-holder, for example to geoblock ads which would be banned in the UK. If the rights-holder fails in this regard, contractual liability could be significant. Reputational damage also needs to be considered if there are complaints to Ofcom or the ASA in the context of a sponsorship.
Relevance of existing HFSS rules:
Most, but not all, products high in fat sugar salt (HFSS) will also be classified as less healthy foods or drinks.
Remember that the new rules will complement existing HFSS advertising restrictions in the CAP and BCAP Codes, which include bans on targeting children under 16 and using licensed characters appealing to children. These will continue to apply, including to most brand advertising for HFSS products.
As we said, the rules are complex, so please do get in touch if you need more detailed advice.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
