People betting on football for the first time during the 2026 World Cup were less likely to feel they had the information needed to make their decisions, according to Gambling Commission research published on 10 November.
In the survey, 60% of new football bettors said they had all the information they needed, compared with 83% of occasional tournament bettors and 91% of those with experience of betting on regular-season football.
Separate questions about promotions revealed uncertainty over accumulator insurance, particularly among newcomers. Together, the findings raise a practical question for Britain's betting industry: how effectively does information designed around familiar products serve somebody encountering them for the first time?
What the survey actually measured
The report, Beyond the Bet, was produced with Yonder Consulting. Its online survey ran from 23 to 30 July, after the tournament had finished. An initial 1,000 responses were reduced to a final sample of 834 UK adults following checks that removed inconsistent or contradictory answers.
The results were unweighted, and the group of new football bettors contained just 70 people. The Commission cautions against generalising the findings to all football or sports bettors.
| Football betting experience | Respondents | Said they had all the information they needed |
|---|---|---|
| First-time football bettors | 70 | 60% |
| Previously bet only on major football tournaments | 296 | 83% |
| Previously bet on regular-season football | 468 | 91% |
Source: Gambling Commission, Beyond the Bet. Unweighted survey responses about perceived access to information.
These categories describe football betting experience. They do not establish how frequently somebody gambles overall.
There is also a distinction between feeling informed and demonstrating understanding. When respondents who wanted more information explained what was missing, answers often concerned football knowledge, player statistics or match analysis. A smaller number mentioned confusion about betting or offers.
The headline percentages therefore cannot establish how many people misunderstood bonus conditions. The report's separate comprehension questions provide more direct evidence on that issue.
The tournament question has a longer history
The Commission has been examining what major football competitions do to gambling behaviour for several years.
After the 2022 World Cup, Yonder recontacted participants in March 2023, with 811 people completing both surveys. That work explored whether engagement continued after the tournament and highlighted the social element of World Cup betting.
For Euro 2024, researchers used three survey waves spanning the period before, during and after the competition. The Commission's account described changing motivations as England progressed and the continuing popularity of free-bet offers.
The 2026 report adds a closer examination of how people make decisions and understand promotions. The studies provide useful context, but their different samples and designs prevent a simple numerical trend being drawn across tournaments.
Our reading is that the recurring challenge concerns the mix of customers a major event brings together. Someone arriving for a national team's match may have very different information needs from a customer already familiar with the weekly football schedule.
Acca insurance exposes a specific point of uncertainty
One of the clearest findings concerned accumulator insurance, commonly shortened to acca insurance.
Respondents were asked whether this meant they always received their full stake back in cash if one selection in an accumulator lost. Half of the overall sample selected “Don't know”. Among new football bettors, that proportion was 80%.
The Commission's terminology describes a qualifying refund provided as a free bet, subject to requirements. The distinction between money returned as cash and credit requiring another bet is material to understanding the offer.
The result records uncertainty: it does not mean that 80% of newcomers positively believed a cash refund was guaranteed. It does suggest that the product's reassuring name cannot be assumed to explain its financial consequences.
In our view, this is where plain language has practical value. The form of the refund, the qualifying conditions and any restrictions on using it belong close to the offer itself. A customer should be able to understand what happens to their money before deciding to participate.
Information must work at the point of decision
Among respondents who used an offer when betting on the World Cup, 35% said they had not sought further information beforehand.
That answer alone cannot tell us whether someone ignored information, already knew the terms or considered the explanation sufficient. It does make the information shown during the normal customer journey especially relevant.
A prominent promise and a separate explanation several clicks away place different demands on the reader. For operators and publishers, the useful test is whether the customer can identify the important conditions while evaluating the offer.
This should include the difference between cash and promotional credit, what activity is required to qualify, and what must happen before any resulting money can be withdrawn. Familiar industry labels can conceal several distinct decisions for a newcomer.
We examined another aspect of promotional responsibility in our analysis of Casumo's Spinumo advertising ruling. That case concerned the behaviour encouraged by a promotion. The World Cup research examines consumer understanding. Both questions deserve attention when assessing an offer.
Clear explanations can support a considered decision, including a decision to decline. They should also sit alongside scrutiny of how strongly the promotion encourages further participation.
AI use adds another information question
The survey found that 7% of respondents used artificial intelligence to help choose bets. Among those aged 18 to 34, reported use reached 12%.
The questionnaire gave ChatGPT, Copilot and Grok as examples of AI tools. It allowed respondents to select multiple information sources, so AI use should not be interpreted as a wholesale replacement for other inputs.
These figures establish reported use within the sample. They do not demonstrate that AI improved decisions, reduced losses or produced profitable predictions.
For the industry, the relevant issue is what the customer understands after consulting any information source. A suggestion about a match result still leaves questions about the price, settlement conditions and the terms of a related promotion.
An additional source of advice should prompt the same scrutiny of understanding as an established one. Its technological label provides little evidence about whether the customer has grasped the transaction.
Our view: measure understanding alongside engagement
The Commission says the findings will inform its work towards gambling being conducted fairly and openly, as well as its wider research programme.
For operators, the useful response is to test explanations with people who have different levels of experience. Can a newcomer explain what a refund consists of, identify the qualifying conditions and distinguish a possible payout from a guaranteed return? Those questions would reveal more than checking whether a terms page exists.
Publishers have a role here too. A review or comparison page should explain the conditions that change the value of an offer. Repeating the headline promise leaves the reader to discover its limits later.
The study remains a snapshot, with a small newcomer group and no basis for proving that experience itself causes better understanding. Greater confidence also provides no guarantee of safer behaviour or better financial outcomes.
Even with those limits, the findings give the industry a useful test before the next major tournament: whether the information surrounding a bet makes sense to the person who is about to place it.