Kevin Pietersen‘s new endorsement agreement with online betting company Dafabet has raised questions about its compatibility with the England and Wales Cricket Board’s (ECB) gambling policies, as the former England captain prepares for an extensive role with the national white-ball teams ahead of the 2027 World Cup.
According to an exclusive report by The Guardian‘s Matt Hughes, Pietersen has assured the ECB that he will not promote the Philippines-based betting operator while carrying out his duties as England’s Specialist Mentor, following his appointment as a Dafabet brand ambassador on Monday.
The assurance creates a boundary around a lucrative commercial agreement at a time when Pietersen is scheduled to spend approximately 150 days working with England over the next 13 months.
Pietersen’s England role limits betting promotion opportunities
Appointed in September to work alongside England Head Coach Brendon McCullum, Pietersen is contracted through to the conclusion of the 2027 ICC Men’s Cricket World Cup, which will be co-hosted by South Africa, Zimbabwe and Namibia.
The 46-year-old will not travel to Pakistan for the upcoming ODI tri-series involving Sri Lanka, but is expected to participate in England’s winter tours of Australia and South Africa, followed by the team’s home white-ball fixtures next summer.
With those assignments accounting for a substantial portion of his schedule, Pietersen’s commitment not to promote Dafabet during England duty could restrict the promotional activities he undertakes for the company.
ECB gambling rules create regulatory considerations
The ECB’s Anti-Corruption Code places restrictions on betting-related activities by players, coaches and other cricket participants.
The code prohibits “directly or indirectly soliciting, inducing, enticing, instructing, persuading, encouraging, facilitating or authorising any other party to enter into a bet in relation to the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of any match or competition.”
Cricket participants are also prohibited from placing bets themselves.
Beyond its anti-corruption regulations, the ECB does not accept advertising revenue from gambling companies and has barred franchises in The Hundred from entering into betting sponsorship agreements starting next year.
County clubs receiving commercial income from gambling businesses must demonstrate that the proceeds are reinvested in infrastructure projects or community programmes.
While these restrictions provide the regulatory context for Pietersen’s partnership, the endorsement agreement itself does not establish a breach of the ECB’s Anti-Corruption Code.
McCullum previously faced scrutiny over betting partnership
The ECB dealt with a comparable issue in 2023 when McCullum, then England’s Test Head Coach, became a brand ambassador for Cyprus-based betting operator 22Bet.
McCullum subsequently promoted the company’s Indian Premier League betting markets through Facebook and YouTube, prompting questions about the arrangement.
After examining the matter, the ECB concluded that he had not violated its Anti-Corruption Code. McCullum nevertheless terminated the partnership.
The two betting companies also differ in their licensing arrangements. Dafabet is licensed to operate in the United Kingdom, while 22Bet holds an offshore licence issued in Curaçao.
Betting restrictions have also led to player sanctions
The ECB’s enforcement of betting rules extends to individual participants, as demonstrated by the disciplinary case involving England fast bowler Brydon Carse.
Carse received a 16-month suspension, with 13 months suspended, after placing 303 bets between 2017 and 2019. The sanction was imposed two years ago.
His case involved personal betting activity rather than a commercial endorsement, distinguishing it from the circumstances surrounding Pietersen’s agreement.
For Pietersen, the immediate issue is how his Dafabet partnership operates alongside his England responsibilities. His assurance not to promote the company while on national team duty provides a stated limitation on the arrangement, with no finding of an anti-corruption breach reported in the supplied material.
