Tony Bloom, the billionaire owner of Brighton & Hove Albion FC, is facing growing scrutiny following allegations that he may have been an anonymous gambler behind winnings totaling $70 million (£52 million) – some of which reportedly included bets on his own football teams.
Bloom, renowned as one of the world’s most successful professional gamblers, is claimed to be the “John Doe” referenced in a United States legal case that sought to uncover the identity of an individual or entity benefiting from a long-running and lucrative gambling streak.
When approached by the Guardian, Bloom declined to confirm whether he was indeed the “John Doe” mentioned in the US court filing issued earlier this year. He has firmly denied betting on his own teams or any competitions in which they participate. A source close to Bloom described the allegations as “entirely false.”
The controversy has prompted members of Parliament, including the former shadow sports minister Clive Efford, to call on the Football Association (FA) to investigate the matter thoroughly.
The Guardian also revealed this week that Bloom faces a separate legal claim in the UK. This lawsuit alleges that he uses intermediaries, or frontmen, to place substantial bets for a gambling syndicate he controls. Among those implicated in the claims is George Cottrell, a former aide to Nigel Farage and a Reform UK insider.
The US case, which had not previously been connected to Bloom, similarly revolves around accusations that a gambling syndicate has employed a frontman to conceal its role in amassing large sums of money.
The allegations first gained public attention after the co-founder of online gambling platform Rollbit accused Bloom’s syndicate of placing bets on his own football teams. The co-founder, known online as Razer, posted the claims on X on 14 November, asserting that Bloom’s syndicate wagered on his own clubs via a frontman. Since then, multiple sources have reinforced the same allegation: that Bloom’s syndicate engaged in betting on teams under his ownership and competitions in which they participate, which would constitute a breach of FA regulations.
The US legal action was initiated to obtain information clarifying whether the “John Doe,” identified on X as Bloom’s syndicate, received winnings through bets placed by a frontman. A judge initially denied the application, but the dispute remains ongoing.
In parallel, Bloom is under scrutiny in the UK for the separate lawsuit alleging he has used frontmen to place substantial bets on behalf of a gambling syndicate he controls. According to UK court documents, these frontmen have included “footballers, sportsmen and businessmen,” as well as George Cottrell.
The UK filing claims that Bloom’s syndicate primarily focused on betting on football.
Razer’s post on X, alongside other sources who spoke to the Guardian, goes further, claiming that Bloom’s syndicate wagered on his own teams with his knowledge and participation. Bloom has declined to answer questions regarding his personal involvement with the syndicate.
Outside of Brighton, Bloom also holds financial interests in Royale Union Saint-Gilloise, a football club in Belgium.
A source close to Bloom has rejected the suggestion that he or his betting syndicate has ever placed bets on football clubs he owns or competitions in which they take part. The source added that Bloom’s betting activities undergo annual audits by a leading accountancy firm.
The audits are designed “to check and confirm that such bets have not taken place” and have reportedly demonstrated that Bloom has fully complied with FA betting policies. The same audit procedures are applied to his Belgian interests.
Bloom is among a small number of club owners granted a 2014 “carve-out” exemption, allowing him to continue gambling, but explicitly forbidding wagers on any of his own teams or competitions they participate in. If proven, the current allegations could constitute a serious breach of FA rules.
Efford has publicly questioned the legitimacy of this exemption, urging the FA to launch a thorough investigation. “No one in a position to influence the outcome of a match or possess inside information can bet on the competition they’re involved in,” he said.
“The FA has to investigate these claims and publish their conclusion. Severe sanctions have been imposed on players for gambling on matches and owners are covered by the same rules so this cannot be ignored.”
Clive Betts, chair of the all-party parliamentary group on football, also voiced concern: “It demonstrates a potentially very serious problem and could just be the tip of the iceberg. It needs a thorough and comprehensive investigation from the FA and transparency around the regulations that govern this in the future.”
Iain Duncan Smith, former leader of the Conservative party, weighed in as well: “The FA must be much more transparent about their lax policy concerning the use of gambling money in the running of their clubs.”
Bloom, often referred to in gambling circles by his nickname “The Lizard,” is widely regarded as one of the most accomplished professional gamblers globally. His betting operation, known as the Starlizard Betting Syndicate, is alleged to generate around £600 million annually, according to the UK court filing.
The UK lawsuit was initiated by a former business partner who claims Bloom owes him his share of gambling profits, estimated at approximately $250 million. A source close to Bloom has indicated that he intends to file a defense against the high court claim in due course.
When approached for comment, George Cottrell did not respond.
The unfolding situation places Tony Bloom and Brighton & Hove Albion at the center of one of the most high-profile betting controversies in recent football history. With questions now being raised in both the UK and the US legal systems, scrutiny of Bloom’s gambling activities—and potential FA rule violations—appears likely to intensify in the coming months.
