Despite the permissive Swedish gambling sponsorship regulations allowing betting operators to involve sporting teams in “moderate” standards of sport advertising, women’s cricket conspicuously features nowhere on the lists of top gambling operators’ sponsorships, reflecting persistent gender segregation in the financing of sport.
Although Swedish law allows state-run Svenska Spel and such as Betsson and Unibet to sponsor sports, their investments all disproportionately go to men’s football, ice hockey, and other historically male-dominated sports, and do not extend to women’s cricket, so do not capture the millions of sponsorship revenue on offer in the market.
This gap stands out particularly in light of Sweden’s advanced gender equality status and the well-balanced gambling market in the country that generates approximately SEK 4.8 billion ($457 million) annually in taxes and maintains an 85% market channelization rate.
It is not always particularly helpful that , in spite of high popularity in Sweden, are banned from advertising.
Regulatory environment allows, but market forces disallow
Sweden’s 2018 Gambling Act requires advertising to be “moderate,” but sets no express restrictions on the sport on which sponsoring is allowable apart from the requirement that unlicensed operators cannot advertise. The Swedish Trade Association for Online Gambling (BOS) has also prepared voluntary codes to ensure that sponsoring is not directed to children, but gender equity in the allocation of sponsoring is not considered.
State-run Svenska Spel, returning more than SEK 2 billion in annual revenue to the state treasury, emphasizes its collaboration with current men’s leagues and national federations and devotes minimal funding to women’s sport beyond token support. Private operators also do the same and seek optimal profile through the men’s Allsvenskan football and SHL ice hockey leagues.
Industry officials point to the absence of gambling sponsors for women’s cricket being the result of market and not regulatory issues. Low coverage and viewership numbers translate to women’s cricket being unable to offer the market exposure that gambling operators desire in the investments they place.
Cricket governance internationally makes things harder
The International Cricket Council (ICC) has specific rules on gambling sponsorships that remain stringent for women’s cricket, with ensuring the integrity of the sport and its family-friendly appeal being topmost. The international regulations add further depth to the domestic regulatory landscape of Sweden.
Cricket’s modest impact in Sweden relative to football and ice hockey makes it even less appealing to gambling sponsors. The absence of a highly developed domestic women’s cricket league also means that Swedish sides play almost exclusively in European championships, lacking much commercial value.
The comparison with men’s cricket elsewhere is revealing. In jurisdictions where cricket remains the dominant sport, betting operators sponsor the men’s teams and competitions directly, implying the gender divide more than the competition determines the choices.
Economic impact of sponsorship absence
Lack of gambling sponsorship constitutes a vicious circle for women’s cricket in Sweden. Lack of serious commercial support makes the sport unable to professionalize, to demand coverage from the mainstream media, and to cultivate the fan support that would attract the interests of sponsors.
While Swedish football clubs have betting associations of 5–15% club revenue per annum, women’s cricket teams exist on minimal state donations and small individual contributions. The difference in revenue impacts the individual player development as much as the facilities and game growth.
Reality is hardly the rosy scenario of Sweden as being the leader in gender equality. Faced with regulations of allowing gambling support of the women’s leagues, market forces and prevailing biases maintain the status quo.
Comparative regulatory models have much to contribute
A glance around the continent provides little promise of change. The Netherlands’ blanket ban on gambling sport sponsorships from July 2025 will affect women’s sport just as much as it reinforces current imbalances. Germany’s example, whereby 17 of the 18 Bundesliga teams have betting partners, displays the same male-dominated impulses.
Even in the UK, to where gambling support comes under increasingly imposed limits, the focus is on the men’s Premier League football and not on creating opportunities for women’s sport. The 2026 voluntary ban on front-of-shirt gambling sponsors will cover the men’s football, and very little thought is given to diverting monies to underserved sports.
Sweden’s regulatory landscape apparently allows gambling operators to sponsor women’s cricket, but lacking incentives or imperatives toward gender-balanced mixes of sponsorships, market forces maintain exclusion. To the extent that regulators concern themselves with questions of only whether gambling operators may sponsor sport and not questions of what sport they do support, women’s cricket will be excluded from access to this very lucrative funding avenue.
