Cookies on the Gambling Commission website

The Gambling Commission website uses cookies to make the site work better for you. Some of these cookies are essential to how the site functions and others are optional. Optional cookies help us remember your settings, measure your use of the site and personalise how we communicate with you. Any data collected is anonymised and we do not set optional cookies unless you consent.

Set cookie preferences

You've accepted all cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Skip to main content

Guidance

Beyond the Bet: Gambling, Engagement and Informed Choice at the 2026 World Cup

The Gambling Commission's research on Gambling, Engagement and Informed Choice at the 2026 World Cup

  1. Contents
  2. Findings
  3. How do World Cup bettors compare with other research?

How do World Cup bettors compare with other research?

Previous research on the 2022 World Cup showed a similar proportion of male bettors overall (70% compared to 71% in 2026), with those aged 35 to 54 also accounting for the largest proportion of respondents (42% compared to 43% in 2026). However, there were more younger bettors in the previous study (38% versus 26% aged 18 to 34). Research on Euro 2024 showed a much more even split between male and female bettors (49% versus 51%). However, both projects used different methodologies, so these comparisons should be treated with caution. The 2026 World Cup demonstrated a higher share of female bettors than among people who bet on football when compared to the 2025 Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB). The GSGB reports that 15% of those who had bet on football in the past 4 weeks were female, compared to 29% of 2026 World Cup bettors.

The GSGB also reports that around 41% of those who placed bets on football in the past 4 weeks were aged 18 to 34, 40% are aged 35 to 54, and 19% are aged 55 or older. This suggests that the World Cup attracts an older audience than the usual football season, with 26% of 2026 World Cup bettors aged 18 to 34, 43% aged 35 to 54, and 26% aged 55 or older1. The GSGB uses a large sample covering the general population of Great Britain, rather than targeting UK bettors as in this survey of the 2026 World Cup, hence representing the average football bettor rather than those betting on major sporting events.

Responses suggest World Cup betting increases the likelihood of future football betting

The majority of respondents (78%) reported that they enjoyed betting on the 2026 World Cup, with 37% agreeing that their experience has made them more likely to bet on future major tournaments, and 19% on future domestic tournaments. This aligns with the motivations reported by World Cup bettors, with “For fun or entertainment”, the most popular option for all bettor types. Enjoyment was lower for new football bettors at 60%, although only 7% reported not enjoying the competition, with 30% neither agreeing nor disagreeing.

Around 1 in 4 (26%) new football bettors agreed that they are likely to increase their betting on football competitions, either major (24%) or domestic (9%), as a result of their World Cup experience. Additionally, 23% of occasional bettors reported that they were likely to increase their betting on domestic football. This suggests that betting on the World Cup may encourage some people to continue betting on football, although this only captures their intended behaviour at the time of the survey.

Among all respondents 37% agreed that they were more likely to bet on future major tournaments following their 2026 World Cup experience, while 19% said they were likely to increase their betting on domestic football. Respondents in our previous major sporting event studies also reported intentions to bet on future football following their tournament betting. Of all wave 3 respondents in our Euro 2024 study, 67% and 52% reported intentions to bet on the 2026 World Cup and Premier League.

The next section of this report is the conclusion and next steps.

References

1The methodology used in this research differs from that of the GSGB and therefore findings are not directly comparable.

Previous section
Informed choice and comprehension
Is this page useful?
Back to top