Betting/Gaming ads during football matches

kippy

howiya wrote: »

I'm not saying i'm impervious to all advertising but what I am saying is that just because somebody advertises something doesn't mean you have to buy it or place a bet in this instance.

To answer your question I'm sure I have bought products due to advertising. We won't know of the existence of some products but for advertising. In other instances we want to buy something but advertising informs our choice between different suppliers.

But as I've said in the post you've quoted nobody buys absolutely everything that they see advertised so there is an element of personal choice.

I grew up in a time when cigarette advertising was still legal. Jordan F1 cars were covered in Benson & Hedges logos. But I also knew that they were bad for you so I have never tried a cigarette. So no matter how much advertising the tobacco companies engaged I was never going to start smoking.

The flipside of that is that people still take up smoking in 2017 even though these companies aren't allowed advertise, shops aren't even allowed have their products on display etc.

All I'm really arguing for is personal responsibility. Either for yourself or for your children that you watch sport with

I am all for personal responsibility but to use it as a reason for condoning the use of sporting events as method to make gambling more accessible is just wrong.
Again I question that line of thought in the first instance. There are very obvious regulations in place for good reason and I firmly believe gambling advertising should be regulated... Personal responsibility or not. Studies elsewhere are worrying.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-15/children-consider-gambling-ads-a-normal-part-of-sport-study/7733696
Gambling advertising was regulated in the UK until 2007. I dont see why that cannot return.

howiya

kippy wrote: »

I am all for personal responsibility but to use it as a reason for condoning the use of sporting events as method to make gambling more accessible is just wrong.
Again I question that line of thought in the first instance. There are very obvious regulations in place for good reason and I firmly believe gambling advertising should be regulated... Personal responsibility or not. Studies elsewhere are worrying.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-15/children-consider-gambling-ads-a-normal-part-of-sport-study/7733696
Gambling advertising was regulated in the UK until 2007. I dont see why that cannot return.

Why did they deregulate it in the UK?

howiya

Deregulated is probably the wrong word since all advertising is subject to ASA standards

kippy

howiya wrote: »

Deregulated is probably the wrong word since all advertising is subject to ASA standards

The ASAI are an Irish Body are they not?
I am just using the terminology I have seen elsewhere - they may be incorrect as well - however the issue is generally with advertisning on UK media where the term deregulation is used.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/nov/19/tv-gambling-ads

The increase the exposure and normalisation of all to gambling is a big reason for the increase in gambling addition.
It does look however, like the UK are going to do something about it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/07/daytime-gambling-adverts-could-be-banned-from-social-media-and-t/

howiya

kippy wrote: »

The ASAI are an Irish Body are they not?
I am just using the terminology I have seen elsewhere - they may be incorrect as well - however the issue is generally with advertisning on UK media where the term deregulation is used.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/nov/19/tv-gambling-ads

The increase the exposure and normalisation of all to gambling is a big reason for the increase in gambling addition.
It does look however, like the UK are going to do something about it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/07/daytime-gambling-adverts-could-be-banned-from-social-media-and-t/

The ASAI are the Irish body. In the UK the equivalent is the ASA.

Opens the door to another question. If it's such a problem why aren't Irish authorities doing anything about it?

kippy

howiya wrote: »

The ASAI are the Irish body. In the UK the equivalent is the ASA.

Opens the door to another question. If it's such a problem why aren't Irish authorities doing anything about it?

One would hope they are planning to.

eagle eye

howiya wrote: »

Change the channel while the ads are on. Pretend you want to catch the news headlines or whatever. You don't have to stop the kids watching the games themselves

They have gambling ads during the games as well which is a new enough things. Also the boards on the side of the pitch have gambling ads too.

eagle eye

howiya wrote: »

The ASAI are the Irish body. In the UK the equivalent is the ASA.

Opens the door to another question. If it's such a problem why aren't Irish authorities doing anything about it?

The advertising is a new enough issue but you never hear anything about it from government officials.

The gambling addiction problem has been growing for years and it's got some exposure in the media but there is nothing being done about it by the government. I've asked some people about it and was told that there are a lot of powerful lobbyists who have shares in gambling firms. Two well known figures who have interests in gambling firms would be JP McManus and Dermot Desmond.

I'll preface this by saying I don't gamble and I've never really been impacted by it, from hearing things like the recent Cathal McCarron interviews (unpleasant as he seems to be) it's clear the awful impact it can have on people's lives. Many of my friends would stick a few quid on whatever is on on a given weekend.

I've read this thread with interest but I find the two overall points in this thread almost contradictory - the first is that gambling advertising is bad (to simplify) and the second is that a gambling addict is basically not in control of their actions. If this is the case then surely the advertising is almost irrelevant to problem gamblers? They're the people who are going to gamble anyway.

The vast majority of punters are not problem gamblers. They gamble within their means, win some lose some. There isn't anything wrong with this.

sword1

Jabari Happy Test wrote: »

I'll preface this by saying I don't gamble and I've never really been impacted by it, from hearing things like the recent Cathal McCarron interviews (unpleasant as he seems to be) it's clear the awful impact it can have on people's lives. Many of my friends would stick a few quid on whatever is on on a given weekend.

I've read this thread with interest but I find the two overall points in this thread almost contradictory - the first is that gambling advertising is bad (to simplify) and the second is that a gambling addict is basically not in control of their actions. If this is the case then surely the advertising is almost irrelevant to problem gamblers? They're the people who are going to gamble anyway.

The vast majority of punters are not problem gamblers. They gamble within their means, win some lose some. There isn't anything wrong with this.

The problem is not to do with the current gamblers ,its to do with teenagers being lured in .I have no doubt that some of the people posting on here have an affiliation with some of the bookies but it is something that longterm will be dealt with. Midday football games with kids being shown adverts on gambling and even if you go on sky sports app there it is

kippy

Jabari Happy Test wrote: »

I'll preface this by saying I don't gamble and I've never really been impacted by it, from hearing things like the recent Cathal McCarron interviews (unpleasant as he seems to be) it's clear the awful impact it can have on people's lives. Many of my friends would stick a few quid on whatever is on on a given weekend.

I've read this thread with interest but I find the two overall points in this thread almost contradictory - the first is that gambling advertising is bad (to simplify) and the second is that a gambling addict is basically not in control of their actions. If this is the case then surely the advertising is almost irrelevant to problem gamblers? They're the people who are going to gamble anyway.

The vast majority of punters are not problem gamblers. They gamble within their means, win some lose some. There isn't anything wrong with this.

Again. The normalisation of gambling and making it appear to be closely associated with sports entertainmnet is the bigger issue. There are not many other activities that are for adults only that are advertised so much into a market where many age groups can be watching. I am not sure how youve missed that point so far tbh.

Dirty Dingus McGee

kippy wrote: »

Again. The normalisation of gambling and making it appear to be closely associated with sports entertainmnet is the bigger issue. There are not many other activities that are for adults only that are advertised so much into a market where many age groups can be watching. I am not sure how youve missed that point so far tbh.

But gambling has been normalised already.There are bookies on every street in the country.

kippy

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

But gambling has been normalised already.There are bookies on every street in the country.

This is not something I agree with either however at least this isnt a blatent attempt to associate watching sport with gambling....... Gambling is far to acessible and far too visible in general.


There are pubs everywhere as well by the way but that hasnt stopped the strict regulation of alcohol advertising in sport.

Fr Tod Umptious

kippy wrote: »

Again. The normalisation of gambling and making it appear to be closely associated with sports entertainmnet is the bigger issue. There are not many other activities that are for adults only that are advertised so much into a market where many age groups can be watching. I am not sure how youve missed that point so far tbh.

I think it just depends on your stage in life.

Before I had kids my reaction would be like one poster here, i.e why should my ability to see what's available in the market be restricted just because kids could be watching.

But now I have kids and I'm far more tuned into what is being advertised etc.

kippy

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I think it just depends on your stage in life.

Before I had kids my reaction would be like one poster here, i.e why should my ability to see what's available in the market be restricted just because kids could be watching.

But now I have kids and I'm far more tuned into what is being advertised etc.

Such small picture thinking is dangerous.

Fr Tod Umptious

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

But gambling has been normalised already.There are bookies on every street in the country.

It has been normalised in horse and greyhound racing for centuries, but only recently in other sports.

Even things that are taken for granted now like in play betting where unheard of 15 years ago.

As the other poster said young lads cannot watch a football game now without having some sort of money on it.

Fr Tod Umptious

kippy wrote: »

Such small picture thinking is dangerous.

Not sure what you mean.

Korat

Betting on football was unheard of among the people I grew up with. Some lads were interested in horses alright but even up to 10 years ago it was highly unusual if I was out with mates to watch a game for anyone in the group to have money on the match. Whereas now it seems it's being pushed as part of the viewing experience. The advertising suggests you're missing out if you're not betting on the game in some way. I can see that influencing young people very easily, especially if it takes hold within a group of friends, and getting them into a potentially destructive habit. The accessibility on smart phones makes it easier and so more dangerous than having to get up and walk to a bookies to put a bet on.

kippy

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Not sure what you mean.

Apologies, only basing your own views on your very point in time scenario. Not being able to see the impact of certain things on wider society.
Very dangerous way of seeing the world.

Agent Coulson

Listening to the Spurs game on 5live TalkSport the commentators read the ad and gave the odds for whichever betting company was giving the cashout.


That's worse than an add before and after a game on tv I think.

Fr Tod Umptious

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Listening to the Spurs game on 5live the commentators read the ad and gave the ods for whichever betting company was giving the cashout.


That's worse than an add before and after a game on tv I think.

An ad, on the BBC ?

Agent Coulson

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

An ad, on the BBC ?

That's why they get the commentators to do it as part of the commentary a sly way of getting an ad on the BBC.

Scratch that it was a sponsored ad on TalkSport.

For some reason the 5live logo is on my app on TuneIn not the TalkSport logo.

Fr Tod Umptious

kippy wrote: »

Apologies, only basing your own views on your very point in time scenario. Not being able to see the impact of certain things on wider society.
Very dangerous way of seeing the world.

Unfortunately that's probably the prevailing view.

I've noticed it this thread and even more so in other threads related to minimum pricing of alcohol, and advertising of drinks in sports.

The attitude seems to be something like "if this is going to adversely effect my ability to have a good time I'm totally against it"

Had a good old ding dong on the rugby board a while back about drinks companies being title sponsors of the main competitions in that sport, a lot of people had no problem with it.

MD1990

Agent Coulson wrote: »

That's why they get the commentators to do it as part of the commentary a sly way of getting an ad on the BBC.

Bettings odds are often discussed on radio especially from BoyleSports.
They give "tipps" on what player to score next & other bets at big odds that are very unlikely to win.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

[/b]

Unfortunately that's probably the prevailing view.

I've noticed it this thread and even more so in other threads related to minimum pricing of alcohol, and advertising of drinks in sports.

The attitude seems to be something like "if this is going to adversely effect my ability to have a good time I'm totally against it"

Had a good old ding dong on the rugby board a while back about drinks companies being title sponsors of the main competitions in that sport, a lot of people had no problem with it.

Shock horror. People care about themselves more than others.

Frankly the opposite attitude of saying my childrens need to be protected is more important than your good time is actually worse.

kippy

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Shock horror. People care about themselves more than others.

Frankly the opposite attitude of saying my childrens need to be protected is more important than your good time is actually worse.

Not just my children. All children.....
And if you cannot see the overal societal issues of addiction and an overall acceptance of doing things for the greater good you have bigger issues than believing gambling adds at sporting events enhance your good time.

Dirty Dingus McGee

kippy wrote: »

Not just my children. All children.....
And if you cannot see the overal societal issues of addiction and an overall acceptance of doing things for the greater good you have bigger issues than believing gambling adds at sporting events enhance your good time.

People need to look after themselves first and foremost.Far too much blame is being put on society for things which are 100% personal choices.

MD1990

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

[/b]

Unfortunately that's probably the prevailing view.

I've noticed it this thread and even more so in other threads related to minimum pricing of alcohol, and advertising of drinks in sports.

The attitude seems to be something like "if this is going to adversely effect my ability to have a good time I'm totally against it"

Had a good old ding dong on the rugby board a while back about drinks companies being title sponsors of the main competitions in that sport, a lot of people had no problem with it.

I don't think that is the attitude.
I some people who bet & have no issues & no when to call it a day are not realising some people can't & have an addiction problem.
Having Ads everywhere is possibly going to make things worse for these people.

UrbanFret

No worse than adds for the national lottery. the poor will always gamble more than they should. It's the way of the world. An attempt to escape the rat race. A few adds on tv won't make any difference.

MD1990

UrbanFret wrote: »

No worse than adds for the national lottery. the poor will always gamble more than they should. It's the way of the world. An attempt to escape the rat race. A few adds on tv won't make any difference.

Plenty of rich footballers have lost millions gambling.
So many NFL players went broke too due to gambling.

Korat

UrbanFret wrote: »

No worse than adds for the national lottery. the poor will always gamble more than they should. It's the way of the world. An attempt to escape the rat race. A few adds on tv won't make any difference.

I disagree.

The bookies are changing the way people watch football. They're telling people it's normal to bet on footballwho scores the first goal etc when it isn't and never has been. That's far more insidious than selling what is in effect a souped-up raffle ticket.

kippy

kippy wrote: »

This is not something I agree with either however at least this isnt a blatent attempt to associate watching sport with gambling....... Gambling is far to acessible and far too visible in general.


There are pubs everywhere as well by the way but that hasnt stopped the strict regulation of alcohol advertising in sport.

What are the regulations exactly? I have a season ticket for Leinster rugby and Guinness sponsor the league, so every match you're having Guinness mentioned over the loadspeaker. And tons and tons of kids attend the game. It used to be sponsored by Bulmers/Magners.

Fr Tod Umptious

Jabari Happy Test wrote: »

What are the regulations exactly? I have a season ticket for Leinster rugby and Guinness sponsor the league, so every match you're having Guinness mentioned over the loadspeaker. And tons and tons of kids attend the game. It used to be sponsored by Bulmers/Magners.

Now, off topic and out of curiosity
As a rugby fan what is your feelings about that ?, i.e that the whole event is in your face drinks company promotion ?

I'm primarily a GAA fan and I'm delighted that over the part few years the GAA has dropped all drinks advertising at (at least) a national level.

Ben Gadot

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

I feel sorry for anyone who gets addicted to anything but it doesn't mean there isn't a degree of stupidity involved as you have a choice of whether or not to participate in something that is addictive.

You're viewing it in simplistic terms as without going too deeply into it, surely you can see the power of something that as you say seems idiotic yet doesn't stop people on their destructive course.

Yet people still destroy their lives and of those around them.

Who in their right mind does that? The answer is no-one. Addiction isn't a switch that can flipped on and off and that's why some people need all the help they can get.

Anyway, to answer the question originally posed, I find it uncomfortable seeing how much the industry has ingratiated itself in general in the sport....but the door was left wide open by clubs. It all comes down to their own greed at the end of the day.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Ben Gadot wrote: »

You're viewing it in simplistic terms as without going too deeply into it, surely you can see the power of something that as you say seems idiotic yet doesn't stop people on their destructive course.

Yet people still destroy their lives and of those around them.

Who in their right mind does that? The answer is no-one. Addiction isn't a switch that can flipped on and off and that's why some people need all the help they can get.

Anyway, to answer the question originally posed, I find it uncomfortable seeing how much the industry has ingratiated itself in general in the sport....but the door was left wide open by clubs. It all comes down to their own greed at the end of the day.

You can get addicted to absolutely anything.Why should advertisements of anything be allowed seeing as they all can have a negative affect on your life.

Fr Tod Umptious

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Now, off topic and out of curiosity
As a rugby fan what is your feelings about that ?, i.e that the whole event is in your face drinks company promotion ?

I'm primarily a GAA fan and I'm delighted that over the part few years the GAA has dropped all drinks advertising at (at least) a national level.

It's not something that really bothers me tbh. I've been going to rugby matches for a long time and I've never really even given it much thought. Rugby crowds tend to be fairly well behaved, you don't see antisocial behavior or negative consequences, so I guess I'm happy enough to see investment in the Irish game to help compete with the huge money in England and France now.

It could well be a failing on my part that potential negative impacts on society just haven't crossed y mind though.

Edit, double post, mod please delete this?

Ben Gadot

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

You can get addicted to absolutely anything.Why should advertisements of anything be allowed seeing as they all can have a negative affect on your life.

You can advertise without being knowingly reckless. Take Ladbrokes' wide boy campaign featuring "the professor" and "gut truster" for example where they're playing up to the archetypal bad gambler trope.

Watchdogs need to be tighter on that type of thing.

ArmaniJeanss

Korat wrote: »

Betting on football was unheard of among the people I grew up with. Some lads were interested in horses alright but even up to 10 years ago it was highly unusual if I was out with mates to watch a game for anyone in the group to have money on the match.

I guess everyones experiences growing up are different but 20 years ago the junior team I played for had a lot of gamblers ; most of us were doing '2 from each section min 700/1' coupon bets, and then first goalscorers bets on the Sky Sunday game to add extra enjoyment to the pints after our own Sunday morning game. If the walk from the pub to the bookies (25 metres) was too much then there was an oullad in the corner of the pub who'd take small bets using the odds on the SuperSoccer coupon and save you the 5% 'battleaxe'. Anyone who fancied staying out for the night would doubtless have a few quid on the final round of whichever uspga golf tournament was live on Sky.

To me all that's really new is the in-play element and the more exotic bets like overs/unders and AsianHCaps. As I said I'm not doubting that your experience was different.

Shanotheslayer

It doesn't bother me myself.

I gamble what an average person would consider a lot.

I track every bet I make and the stakes etc etc. I tend to ignore the ad's at HT and pre game etc as general they tend to be utter crap bets.

I'd say a high population of 18-25 year olds just use Paddypower anyway so the rest of the marketing team with other bookies is so far behind it's ridiculous.

Yet PP give the worst prices usually and everyone still uses them :rolleyes:

eagle eye

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

It doesn't bother me myself.

I gamble what an average person would consider a lot.

I track every bet I make and the stakes etc etc. I tend to ignore the ad's at HT and pre game etc as general they tend to be utter crap bets.

I'd say a high population of 18-25 year olds just use Paddypower anyway so the rest of the marketing team with other bookies is so far behind it's ridiculous.

Yet PP give the worst prices usually and everyone still uses them :rolleyes:

Wtf has this to do with kids being exposed to gambling advertisment during the day?

Shanotheslayer

eagle eye wrote: »

Wtf has this to do with kids being exposed to gambling advertisment during the day?

Apologies, in work and hit post by mistake rather than further commenting and forgot to get back to it.

Anyway,

So everything adult related should be showed after 8PM? So Condom Commercials?

Why should kids decide what goes on TV at what time? I can understand obviously porn etc anything in that area, but gambling? Gambling has a bad voodoo because people have gone way overboard. The Same with Alcohol. This shouldn't mean that other people can't view these ads.

What happens if somebody works nights? 6PM-6AM? They'll never see an advertisement for adults? Sounds utter bollix to me.

It all comes down to the individual and nothing else. I see an advertisement for saying '' Call 1890696969 for the best time of my life'' I don't call it, it's the parents responsibility to teach their kids, the world doesn't revolve around children.

People also think theirs a difference between Gambling and the Lotto, there isn't. Both is gambling. Just because one has a bigger jackpot it's somehow deemed ok.

bohsman

http://calvinayre.com/2016/12/01/business/uk-kids-response-gambling-advertising-spell-trouble/
Seems parents and advertisers can both take a lot of blame.
Also fairly strict rules in place in the UK for ads, nobody that looks under 25 is allowed to appear in ads, see https://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2012/1/Paddy-Power-plc/SHP_ADJ_174843.aspx#.WHOn4hsrKUl

https://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2015/11/Ladbrokes-Betting-and-Gaming-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_313550.aspx#.WHOoPhsrKUl

Fr Tod Umptious

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Apologies, in work and hit post by mistake rather than further commenting and forgot to get back to it.

Anyway,

So everything adult related should be showed after 8PM? So Condom Commercials?

Why should kids decide what goes on TV at what time? I can understand obviously porn etc anything in that area, but gambling? Gambling has a bad voodoo because people have gone way overboard. The Same with Alcohol. This shouldn't mean that other people can't view these ads.

What happens if somebody works nights? 6PM-6AM? They'll never see an advertisement for adults? Sounds utter bollix to me.

It all comes down to the individual and nothing else. I see an advertisement for saying '' Call 1890696969 for the best time of my life'' I don't call it, it's the parents responsibility to teach their kids, the world doesn't revolve around children.

People also think theirs a difference between Gambling and the Lotto, there isn't. Both is gambling. Just because one has a bigger jackpot it's somehow deemed ok.

Yes they are both gambling.
But it can be argued that there is a difference because Lotto gives back to the community whereas regular gambling only gives back to the shareholders.

kippy

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Apologies, in work and hit post by mistake rather than further commenting and forgot to get back to it.

Anyway,

So everything adult related should be showed after 8PM? So Condom Commercials?

Why should kids decide what goes on TV at what time? I can understand obviously porn etc anything in that area, but gambling? Gambling has a bad voodoo because people have gone way overboard. The Same with Alcohol. This shouldn't mean that other people can't view these ads.

What happens if somebody works nights? 6PM-6AM? They'll never see an advertisement for adults? Sounds utter bollix to me.

It all comes down to the individual and nothing else. I see an advertisement for saying '' Call 1890696969 for the best time of my life'' I don't call it, it's the parents responsibility to teach their kids, the world doesn't revolve around children.

People also think theirs a difference between Gambling and the Lotto, there isn't. Both is gambling. Just because one has a bigger jackpot it's somehow deemed ok.

But if you apply this logic of everything is down to the individual why have any laws in the first instance?
Do you believe an increase in the number of young adults and adults in general that are exposed to gambling advertisememts is a good thing for society?
A lot of things can be classed as gambling but adds for the late lotto are not splashed al over the place as with the increasing amount of adds tied to live sport and soccer in particular.

citytillidie

Only gambling i do is when watching the game with friends, stick a pound on the correct score around us. if nobody has the correct score we do a draw to see who gets the money, no book makers and nobody serious out of pocket and a bit of craic

callaway92

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Apologies, in work and hit post by mistake rather than further commenting and forgot to get back to it.

Anyway,

So everything adult related should be showed after 8PM? So Condom Commercials?

Why should kids decide what goes on TV at what time? I can understand obviously porn etc anything in that area, but gambling? Gambling has a bad voodoo because people have gone way overboard. The Same with Alcohol. This shouldn't mean that other people can't view these ads.

What happens if somebody works nights? 6PM-6AM? They'll never see an advertisement for adults? Sounds utter bollix to me.

It all comes down to the individual and nothing else. I see an advertisement for saying '' Call 1890696969 for the best time of my life'' I don't call it, it's the parents responsibility to teach their kids, the world doesn't revolve around children.

People also think theirs a difference between Gambling and the Lotto, there isn't. Both is gambling. Just because one has a bigger jackpot it's somehow deemed ok.

Wow. I don't think you understand advertising AT ALL

Shanotheslayer

kippy wrote: »

But if you apply this logic of everything is down to the individual why have any laws in the first instance?
Do you believe an increase in the number of young adults and adults in general that are exposed to gambling advertisememts is a good thing for society?
A lot of things can be classed as gambling but adds for the late lotto are not splashed al over the place as with the increasing amount of adds tied to live sport and soccer in particular.

The Advertisement are placed in the relevant section, they're not going to advertise when Cornation St is on for example. They advertise when sports in on, to bet on Sports. I don't see any issue here. I don't believe it's a good thing for society, nor do I believe it's a bad thing.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Yes they are both gambling.
But it can be argued that there is a difference because Lotto gives back to the community whereas regular gambling only gives back to the shareholders.

The issue is with gambling advertisements not what it gives back to the community, ban 1 ban all if that's the case.

Shanotheslayer

Also the best part about all those advertisements are for signup offers. Anyone that has any interest and or knows much about maths etc is guarenteed to make profit off those sign ups.

Bookies havea strict policy when trying to withdraw money from account need passport/address etc confirmation.

These people are 18 they are adults. 'Young adult' or not they are legally allowed to do this.

Kirby

The ads do annoy me because of how pervasive they are during football now. It's bloody constant before and during the game. But people who are going to gamble are going to do it anyway. Banning the ads won't change that.

I'll bet on football the odd time and occasionally bet on MMA. And I don't gamble with money I don't have because I'm not a f*cking idiot.

I am a big proponent of personal responsibility. I don't care what an ad says or how persuasive people claim it may be....nobody is forced to gamble. And nobody is forced to gamble away money they can't afford to lose. Ads won't change that and people blaming them are passing the buck.

People have to accept and acknowledge their own actions and not try and blame the big bad bookies. They are a business like any other and they are upfront with their customers. People comparing them to the payday loansharks that we've seen in recent years are way off the mark. Those lot are actively deceiving in their ads. Paddy power and their ilk are not.