No more gambling front of shirt sponsorship

In Premier League (beginning 25/26 season, presumably due to current contracts). I wonder if the EFL will follow suit?

 

Can't believe it's taken so long - or that it was ever allowed in the first place. But yes, well done FA. Better late than never.

 

Nothing to do with the fa, it’s the premier league clubs that have agreed it between themselves. The fa might have suggested it to be fair but they were toothless to enforce it and the premier league left it to the clubs.

It’s from the end of 25/26 too, so we will see betting companies on the shirts until may 26.

I suspect the EFL (the SkyBet EFL remember) won’t be quick to follow suit. There’s money in it as the companies can’t get exposure elsewhere. I’d also expect the Scottish clubs to get longer deals.

I do get the moral argument but I don’t personally agree with it. I understand the perils of gambling addiction of course, but these perils are no worse in my eyes than the issues with alcoholism, obesity, or the cons from various Ponzi schemes or cryptocurrencies. So are they so much worse an option than your headline suspects like Heineken, Budweiser, McDonalds, Mars, Coca-Cola? Who should we have sponsoring football teams? There’s only so many Middle Eastern states to pretend they have ‘businesses’ that require sponsorship opportunities.

There are a lot more morally suspect companies that throw money at football than betting companies in my eyes.

 

Good.

 

Gambling addiction is absolutely ruinous and I think you're minimising the impact and damage it causes. The industry is despicable in gamifying gambling and the use of dark patterns to part people from as much money as possible, even knowing that a substantial part of their income comes from people with problems.

Even the "when the fun stops, stop" stuff makes no sense. It's basically saying "when you've become addicted, just stop." Great advice, I'm sure the addicts haven't thought of simply not betting...

 

Gambling addiction is ruinous. Gambling per se is not. That distinction is often not made when gambling is debated. The difference between gambling on 'machine' games (casino-based, slots and the like) and sports betting (football, horseracing) likewise is often ignored. The former offers no possibility of making a profit, whereas the latter, involving the exercise of skill and judgement does offer that possibility (although it is not easy). The forthcoming gambling white paper will set out the government's view on gambling law reform. If it goes too far, particularly in terms of requiring bookmakers to conduct 'affordability' checks before allowing customers to bet then it will sound the death knell for the horseracing industry in this country. That will no doubt please Mr C, but it will disappoint many on here, including me.

 

Bet they don’t,,,,,,,,DOH!!!

 

Then isn't this an admission that the industry is propped up by people who are gambling irresponsibly/have an issue?

And if you are a winning punter where do you think the money that pays you out comes from? It's not from Denise Coates' pocket...

I don't think gambling should be banned, but I do think it should be more regulated than it currently is.

 

I strongly believe that ALL gambling advertising should be banned, just like smoking was - eventually. Unfortunately the gambling companies are right up the Tories back passage as recently demonstrated by Scott Benton.

 

It's a tricky one, it would be hard to ban completed, but you don't see bookies in up-market town centres and affluent areas do you? It's a way of extracting cash from people who can't afford it.

 

If you have a company you should be able to advertise, including on the front of football shirts. Let the people who buy the shirts dictate whether they will purchase one or not.

Where do you draw the line? It just gets down to banning what ever a section of society want at the time.

Can't say I have ever been driven to gambling because of someone sponsoring a football club or because someone had the name of a bookmaker on a t-shirt etc. Nor do I think the majority of the people who may have developed a gambling addiction were driven to it through this channel.

 

Not correct.

Look at some of these affluent areas all supposedly in top 10 areas..

Windsor - There is a Coral bookies almost across from the castle, another 2 just down the road.
Marlow - More than one in the centre
Beaconsfield - Defo has a coral bookies in centre

They are in virtually all towns in the UK, not just poorer areas.

 

Alcohol & tobacco have been banned for years. I get with the rest of your post though.

I have a very addictive personality. I have to say adverts have had little influence on my lifestyle TBH. Betting is about the only addiction I've not had to deal with. It really gets my goat that advert about "Betting Limits" that comes up on iFollow. That is utter horse manure. Pizza is a massive killer too. Papa John's take notice.

Why can't we go back to Shaw Carpets?

 

Ended up with 40 carpets in the garage when we had them.

PS -Be careful talking about carpets though, we'll have Stephen Dawson bringing insights into shagpile.

 

True, they are in every town - no need for the word "virtually", but they are more numerous in poorer areas. Even posh towns have their share of poor people.

On the subject of advertising, they wouldn't be spending money on it if it didn't increase their profits. Profits often made from the suffering of addicts and their (innocent) families. For every 100 responsible gamblers (who they also make money from - nobody wins other than the companies) there are a few addicts whose lives have been destroyed.

 

You could argue the same for almost any product though. Fast food for instance, Toy manufacturers (expecially at xmas time). So it really is where do you draw the line with advertising. A name on the front of a footy shirt is probably hardly a concern versus TV, Internet, Social Media and even radio advertising.

 

Shag pile @Stephen Dawson .co.uk

 

Fair point, many lives are ruined by obesity from eating a poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle. I suppose that I'm coming from a position of not really understanding the point of gambling. Even people who gamble regularly will be the first to admit that they always lose money, which for me begs the question "why do it then?".

 

I think a name on the front of footie kit is a very big concern, as it's the closest those companies can come to marketing to kids - they're trying to associate the brand with their heroes.

It's pretty filthy when you think about it, and the fact that sponsors are willing to pay up to £10m for their name on a shirt demonstrates that it has real value to them.

 

How am i minimising the damage?

By disagreeing on the allowing of them to sponsor football teams?

You appear to have completely missed my point and read my post as a defence of gambling firms.

Although I will defend them. To a point. Betting firms do a heck of a lot more to combat gambling addiction than any brewer does to combat alcoholism, any fast food company does to combat obesity or Ponzi schemes do to combat the naive being parted from their money.

My point was that if gambling firms cannot sponsor sporting events and teams, due to the product they sell and the risks attached, then on a similar moral
argument what types of company are acceptable?