Licensing documents and any correspondence with Footstock
Request
Three weeks prior to the collapse of the 'Football Stock Market', Football Index, the company mentioned in the subject of this email we're issued a licence.
Given that an investigation into Football Index (ran by Betindex) was ongoing when this licence was issued, and the term 'stock' in the companies name, I'd like you to release the licensing documents and any correspondence with the company(redacted as necessary) from initial discussions to the surrendering of it's licence in march 2021.
Public interest will be high in this one due to the volume of money lost to football index, and the subsequent wholesale changes to the Gambling Commissions processes whereby 'a novel product is unlikely to be licenced.'
Response
Thank you for your request which has been processed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
In your email you have requested the following information relating to Footstock:
‘Given that an investigation into Football Index (ran by Betindex) was ongoing when this licence was issued, and the term 'stock' in the companies name, I'd like you to release the licensing documents and any correspondence with the company (redacted as necessary) from initial discussions to the surrendering of it's licence in March 2021.'
The Commission is a regulatory body with licensing, compliance, and enforcement functions; through our regulatory activity, the Commission aims to protect consumers and the wider public, and to raise standards in the gambling industry. A key aim of the Commission is to ensure that licensed businesses are compliant in the shortest possible time - this protects consumers fastest and reduces the chances of crime entering businesses.
Once licensed, gambling operators are subject to ongoing compliance requirements and are subject to regulatory action should they fail to meet their licence requirements. Information collated as part of this process is used to assess whether a person or entity is fit to hold a licence.
The Commission has robust and effective processes and procedures in place which are utilised when assessing licensees. These procedures and processes are put in place to minimise the risk of an operator being allowed to continue to offer gambling facilities where they do not meet the required standards. This demonstrates to the public at large that they can have confidence in the Commission’s licence assessment processes.
In order to fulfil your request, we conducted a search for any Gambling Commission correspondence with Footstock until the surrendering of their licence in March 2021. The results produced from this search were then reviewed in line with the FOIA, and we can confirm that information is held falling within the scope of your request.
However, the Commission is of the view that information in relation to specific operators, other than what is made publicly available, is exempt from disclosure under section 31(1)g of the FOIA (‘law enforcement’) and therefore will not be released.
Section 31
Section 31(1)(g) exempts information whose disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the purposes specified in subsection (2).
The Commission considers the subsections below apply and therefore the information is exempt from disclosure:
i. Subsection 31(2)(a) refers to the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply with the law,
ii. Subsection 31(2)(b) refers to the purpose of ascertaining whether any person is responsible for any conduct which is improper,
iii. Subsection 31(2)(c) refers to the purpose of ascertaining whether circumstances which would justify regulatory action in pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise,
iv. Subsection 31(2)(d) refers to the purpose of ascertaining a person’s fitness or competence in relation to the management of bodies corporate or in relation to any profession or other activity which he is, or seeks to become, authorised to carry on.
Public interest test
Within your request, you have referenced that public interest will be high in relation to this request due to the volume of money lost to Football Index. Due to the nature of the collapse of Bet Index and the number of people who were impacted by its closure, the public interest test, although finely balanced, was previously found to be in favour of disclosure for requested information and often outweighed the application of the exemption. However, the collapse of Bet Index was a unique case, and therefore cannot set a precedent for all cases.
The factors the Commission has considered when applying the public interest test have been detailed below.
Arguments in favour of disclosure:
The Commission is a public body which is required to regulate the gambling industry in the public interest. There is therefore a public interest in members of the public having confidence the Commission is being open and honest with the information it holds so that it can be held to account.
It is important that the public are assured that the Commission is carrying out its functions in ensuring that any individuals or organisations who are involved in providing gambling facilities to the public have undergone the necessary assessments and will uphold the licencing objectives ensuring that consumers are protected.
Disclosure of the requested information could demonstrate to stakeholders and relevant parties how the Commission is assessing licensees and, furthermore, this disclosure may encourage stakeholders to work with us and contribute to our programme of work, increasing confidence in the Commission as a regulator and its ability to uphold the law.
Arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption:
The Commission engage in email conversations on a daily basis regarding different licenced operators. Information generated as part of this process is used to assess whether a person or entity is fit to hold a licence.
Disclosing this information would firstly undermine our trust with licensees or stakeholders. There is an expectation of confidence in much of the Commission’s work, particularly when discussing areas of a licensee’s compliance with the LCCP and other commercially sensitive information. It is the impact on this work that is more likely to be affected by disclosure, as disclosing the information supplied in confidence would make it more difficult to acquire such information from licensees and stakeholders in the future. Whilst we have formal powers to compel the provision of information, this is not always as effective.
The amount of information the Commission can release relating to our specific discussions about a licensee could also lead to potentially non-compliant licensees altering their behaviour specifically to meet the Commission’s standards purely for assessment purposes. This in turn may impact on the Commission’s function of ascertaining a gambling operator’s fitness to carry out gambling activities.
The Commission has robust and effective processes and procedures in place which are utilised when assessing licensees. These procedures and processes have been put in place to minimise the risk of an operator providing gambling services where they do not meet the required standards. This demonstrates to the public at large that they can have confidence in the Commission’s compliance assessment processes.
Finally, disclosure of the requested information would prejudice the outcome of future assessments by the Commission by exposing assessment techniques and practices to the detriment of the public interest.
Weighing the balance
The Commission acknowledges that there is a public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of public authorities and the importance of having sufficient information in the public domain to support consumers with their choice of operator, however, disclosure of the information would be damaging to the Commission as a regulatory body which ultimately serves to protect the wider public interest.
It is important that the public are assured that the Commission is carrying out its functions in ensuring that any individuals/organisations who are involved in providing gambling facilities to the public have undergone the necessary assessments and will uphold the licencing objectives ensuring that consumers are protected.
However, there is a strong public interest in preserving the processes that the Commission has in place to assess operators’ compliance with the LCCP and identify any operators who will be unable to comply with the licensing requirements. The public trust that the Commission has robust processes in place to assess operators so that when they use the services provided by an operator, they are confident that there has been sufficient scrutiny of that operator to ensure that they are protected. If this information were released it would undermine that confidence.
We consider that the public interest is better served by withholding this information, ensuring that consumers are protected through our processes rather than releasing information about our processes which in our view will not benefit the public as a whole.
The Commission takes steps to publish information, ensuring the transparency and accountability of its regulatory work. Specific details of correspondence between individual Licensees does not contribute to the overall understanding of the gambling industry. We release details of our enforcement activity through public statements, which can be found on our website here: Public Register. When we publish these statements, we take care to present as much information as possible to ensure that lessons can be learned, and standards raised in the industry.
Review of the decision
If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your Freedom of Information request you are entitled to an internal review of our decision. You should write to FOI Team, Gambling Commission, 4th floor, Victoria Square House, Victoria Square, Birmingham, B2 4BP or by reply to this email.
Please note, internal review requests should be made within 40 working days of the initial response. Requests made outside this timeframe will not be processed.
If you are not content with the outcome of our review, you may then apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have already exhausted the review procedure provided by the Gambling Commission.
It should be noted that if you wish to raise a complaint with the ICO about the Commission’s handling of your request for information, then you are required to do so within six weeks of receiving your final response or last substantive contact with us.
The ICO can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office (opens in a new tab), Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.
Information Management Team
Gambling Commission
Internal Review Request
I am writing to request an internal review of Gambling Commission's handling of my FOI request 'Footstock GMBH'.
There is a quite unique public interest in this case. At the time of application and approval of a licence, Football Index had dramatically reduced dividends and a large amount of users were stating their discontent at the platform.
The Football Index forum was bombarded by with subject headers about Footstock - giving advice to join and even referral codes. Indeed, a large number of Football Index YouTube 'influencers' either starting partnerships with Footstock, or changing their YouTube channel name to Footstock...... Instead of FI.....
While the user numbers of Footstock and FI would have been massively different because Footstock was in it's infancy, there is no doubt that there was a large interest in Footstock as an alternative to Football Index, as well as a couple of other platforms (Sorare, currently under investigation by the UK Gambling Commission)
Internal Review Response
I am writing to you further to your Freedom of Information request dated 27/11/2025 which we responded to on 29/12/2025, and your subsequent request for an internal review received on 16/01/2026.
We have now concluded our review, and our findings are detailed below.
This internal review was conducted by someone who was not involved in the processing of your original request.
In your initial email you requested the following information:
Three weeks prior to the collapse of the 'Football Stock Market' Football Index, Footstock were issued a licence.
Given that an investigation into Football Index (ran by Betindex) was ongoing when this licence was issued, and the term 'stock' in the company’s name, I'd like you to release the licensing documents and any correspondence with the company (redacted as necessary) from initial discussions to the surrendering of it's licence in March 2021.
In our initial response we confirmed that information falling within the scope of your request was held by the Commission. However, the Commission was of the view that information in relation to specific operators, other than what is made publicly available, is exempt from disclosure under section 31(1)g of the FOIA (‘law enforcement’) and therefore will not be released.
Internal review
After reviewing your request and our response, I uphold our original decision to engage the section 31(1)g exemption. My considerations for this decision are detailed below.
The Commission is a regulatory body with licensing, compliance, and enforcement functions and through our regulatory activity, the Commission aims to protect consumers and the wider public, and to raise standards in the gambling industry.
Gambling operators are required to hold a licence from the Commission in order to offer facilities for gambling to customers located in Great Britain. The Commission goes through a licence application process as part of this and makes an assessment of suitability against criteria set out in the Act. Part 5 of the Gambling Act 2005 details the Commission’s statutory functions in relation to the licensing requirements. The Licence conditions and codes of practice (LCCP) set out the requirements all licensees must meet in order to hold a Gambling Commission licence.
Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice
When we receive licence applications an assessment is made on whether a business will uphold the licensing objectives and also the suitability of the applicant to carry out the activities that the licence allows. As part of this assessment the Commission will request the following evidence to support the application and the individuals who are relevant to the application, such as:
- the identity of the individuals,
- financial and other circumstances including resources available to carry out licensed activities
- integrity – honesty and trustworthiness
- competence – experience, expertise, qualifications and history
- criminality – criminal record
Details with regards to how we process a licence application can be found on our website:
These checks are carried out to ensure that we meet our obligations under the Act and our Statement of Principles.
Once licensed, gambling operators are subject to ongoing compliance requirements and are subject to regulatory action should they fail to meet their licence requirements.
Information collated as part of this process is used to assess whether a person or entity is fit to hold a licence
Section 31(1)(g) exempts information whose disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the purposes specified in subsection (2). I consider that subsection 31(2)(d), which refers to the purpose of ascertaining a person’s fitness or competence in relation to the management of bodies corporate or in relation to any profession or other activity which he is, or seeks to become, authorised to carry on, is engaged.
I recognise that it is important that the public are assured that the Commission is carrying out its functions in ensuring that any individuals or organisations who are or were involved in providing gambling facilities to the public would have undergone the necessary assessments and will uphold the licencing objectives ensuring that consumers are protected.
However, there is an expectation of confidence in much of the Commission’s work, particularly when discussing areas of a licensee’s compliance with the LCCP. It is the impact on this work of the Commission which is more likely to be affected by disclosure.
The amount of information the Commission can release relating to our specific discussions about a licensee could lead to potentially non-compliant licensees altering their behaviour specifically to meet the Commission’s standards purely for assessment purposes. This in turn may impact on the Commission’s function of ascertaining a gambling operator’s fitness to carry out gambling activities.
Disclosure of this information would also undermine the Commission's ability to uphold the licensing objectives which would impact on the trust and confidence of the public in it as a regulator. Further, disclosure of the requested information would prejudice the outcome of future assessments by the Commission by exposing assessment techniques and practices to the detriment of the public interest.
There is a strong public interest in preserving the processes that the Commission has in place to assess potential operators’ ability to comply with the LCCP and identify any operators who will be unable to comply with the licensing requirements. The public trust that the Commission has robust processes in place to assess operators so that when they use the services provided by an operator, they are confident that there has been sufficient scrutiny of that operator to ensure that they are protected. If this information were released it would undermine that confidence.
In your request for an internal review, you have focused on there being a unique public interest in this case and referenced that at the time of application and approval of a licence, Football Index had dramatically reduced dividends and a large amount of users were stating their discontent at the platform. Suggesting that while the user numbers of Footstock would have been massively different because Footstock was in it's infancy, there is no doubt that there was a large interest in Footstock as an alternative to Football Index.
It should be noted that the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) did previously uphold a complaint leading to the disclosure of due diligence carried out by the Gambling Commission on Bet Index Limited.
In that specific case the decision notice did confirm that the S31 – Law Enforcement exemption was correctly engaged by the Commission. However, due to the sensitive nature of the collapse of BetIndex and the number of people who have been impacted by its closure, the public interest, although finely balanced, was found to be in favour of disclosure. The information was exempt, but the public interest in disclosure was found to outweigh the application of the exemption in this specific case.
Footstock surrendered their licence shortly after the collapse of BetIndex, preventing them from facilitating gambling in Great Britain. This is a different scenario to the BetIndex request and as such, the public interest in disclosure will be different. Public interest test decisions are request specific and cannot simply be applied to other requests. The public interest test has to be conducted specifically to each individual request.
As such, I still consider that the public interest is better served by withholding this information, ensuring that consumers are protected through our processes rather than releasing information which in our view will not benefit the public.
If you are not content with the outcome of your review, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by the Gambling Commission. The ICO can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office (opens in a new tab), Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.