UPDATED 10.12.25 following publication of the final version of the ASA's guidance; originally published 14.7.25.

The UK is set to introduce new laws from January 5, 2026, that will affect the implementation of sponsorship deals for less healthy food and drink products in the UK. The rules are complex and have significant 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: The exemptions relating to brand advertising are complex but important. At a high level, the exemption will allow most advertising of a sponsor in this category, provided a specific less healthy product is not identifiable from the advert. As such, simple "proud partner" advertising which includes the logo and imagery of the sponsored property, and just the name or logo of the food/drink brand (including the brand of a range of products) will be acceptable, provided that:
  • the name or logo in question is used only as a part of a specific product's name (e.g. if all products are named "[BRAND] [Flavour/Sub-name]" the use of "[BRAND]" (and the associated overarching logo) in brand advertising will be permitted); or

  • if the name or logo is used, on a standalone basis, as the name of a specific product (i.e. the bullet above does not apply), but it has been used since prior to 16th July 2025 as the brand of a corporate entity or range of products (e.g., if prior to 16 July 2025 there has been the use of "The [BRAND] Company Ltd", or a range of products has been known as "[BRAND] [drinks/crisps/chocolate]", then again, the use of "[BRAND]" (and the associated overarching logo) in brand advertising will be permitted.

    Brand advertising can also include generic imagery of products which are not identifiable as a specific less healthy product. However, various factors may result in a specific product being identifiable, including other brand elements — think colours, get-up, or mascots — that are associated only with one specific product. 

    We have published a more detailed note on the brand advertising exemption here: ASA issues final guidance on less healthy food advertising restrictions.

• 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 (that is, the advertising has been paid for by the sponsoring brand via the rights fee, or in-kind consideration) will be caught by the new rules, unless the brand advertising or another exemption (see above) applies.

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. 

Given that brand advertising is 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) will normally be permitted.
• A social post which is delivered as a sponsorship right and which shows an athlete consuming the sponsors' identifiable, in-scope product is likely to be prohibited in the UK.
• Images of athletes drinking an identifiable, in-scope product after a competition may be acceptable if used within pure editorial contexts.  However, if these images are posted by the rights holder, even if there is no express obligation to post such content, there is a risk that this may still be deemed "paid for" advertising for the sponsor, particularly if the post tags or promotes the sponsor in any way.  
• A team title sponsorship is likely to be acceptable under the exemption for brand advertising, but images of a specific less healthy product of that sponsor, 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 or 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.

Myth busters

The new rules are not particularly logical, so it may be helpful to flag a couple of points which we know rights holders have, wrongly, assumed:

• Assumption: We'll need to swap in all the sponsor's logos we currently use for that of their 'zero sugar'/'low fat' versions. Answer: Wrong - the brand advertising exemption will normally allow you to continue to use a corporate/generic range logo as you are currently.
• Assumption: Our sponsor only produces less healthy products, so we'll have to remove their name/logo from all our digital platforms. Answer: Wrong - the brand advertising exemption will normally allow the use of name/logos of sponsor brands even if they have no 'healthy' products in their range, but you won't be able to show any of their actual products.  
• Assumption: We're a global brand, so our online platforms aren't specifically targeted at the UK, so we're not caught. Answer: Maybe - if you're a UK based rights holder, this argument is unlikely to fly, even for globally available content. If, for example, you're a US-based rights holder and your English-language content is accessible globally, and the content isn't otherwise specifically targeted to the UK, you're probably correct, and your online platforms won't be caught by the restrictions.

As we said, the rules are complex, so please do get in touch if you need more detailed advice.