Soccer relationship with betting (2021)

Father Hernandez

Mod: original tweet removed as Arsenal twitter also included a link for the betting site.

Maybe just me but does this not sit right with anyone else?

I stick on a few bets, nothing serious here and there, certainly not anti-gambling but don’t feel it needs to be rammed down the throat to gamble, gamble, gamble.

The money it gives to the game is incredible but is there any alternative if it’s getting some folks hooked?

Aware it’s not just Arsenal - this just stood out this morning.

RasTa

I've never seen it done like that before. Shouldn't be allowed.

Shanotheslayer

They're only short of having an affiliate link in their tweets.

This seems to be a new thing with the club's posting on twitter with betting links.

Collie D

Father Hernandez wrote: »

Maybe just me but does this not sit right with anyone else?

I stick on a few bets, nothing serious here and there, certainly not anti-gambling but don’t feel it needs to be rammed down the throat to gamble, gamble, gamble.

The money it gives to the game is incredible but is there any alternative if it’s getting some folks hooked?

Aware it’s not just Arsenal - this just stood out this morning.

I’d be similar to yourself. Definitely not anti gambling and actually have phone in my hand to stick on a bet for the afternoon but something with that doesn’t sit right.

And it’s not purely because it’s a gambling site. The way of modern football. No mention of being up for the game or hoping for a win...pure corporatism (not a word but it fits).

GLaDOS

Are other clubs doing similar?

Shít like that is targeting young teens.

Shanotheslayer

GLaDOS wrote: »

Are other clubs doing similar?

Shít like that is targeting young teens.

Leicester I believe did it the other day and Gary Linekar called them out on it

theoneeyedman

Father Hernandez wrote: »

Mod: removed as it is an advertisement for betting.

Maybe just me but does this not sit right with anyone else?

I stick on a few bets, nothing serious here and there, certainly not anti-gambling but don’t feel it needs to be rammed down the throat to gamble, gamble, gamble.

The money it gives to the game is incredible but is there any alternative if it’s getting some folks hooked?

Aware it’s not just Arsenal - this just stood out this morning.

I personally don't like it, but many clubs have strong links with gambling companies at this stage.
Was there half or something of the EPL teams last year had gambling companies as main shirt sponsors? Add to that the likes of Liverpool with bookies sponsoring training kits etc....

Doesn't sit well, normalises gambling, a horrible if legal industry. They're all in bed together though, this type of advertising and linkage allowed, and then the book thrown at individual players for having any links with bookies or with any betting: it's either allowed or its not.

DM_7

Mod: I removed that tweet as it incidentally included a link to a betting side

For those who did not see it, Arsenal twitter sent a tweet about betting in their game and promoting a specific company to bet with.

Burnley are sponsored by betting company and new chairman has promised to review.

https://twitter.com/sistoney67/status/1346053612565377025?s=19

JPA

Sky had commentary bingo during the Liverpool United game, betting on whether certain words or phrases will be used. How wrong is what?!

Father Hernandez

DM_7 wrote: »

Mod: I removed that tweet as it is a promotion iof betting

For those who did not see it, Arsenal twitter sent a tweet about betting in their game and promoting a specific company to bet with.

Burnley are sponsored by betting company and new chairman has promised to review.

https://twitter.com/sistoney67/status/1346053612565377025?s=19

Whoops, sorry DM_7.

I was actually trying to do the opposite

Shanotheslayer

Father Hernandez wrote: »

Whoops, sorry DM_7.

I was actually trying to do the opposite

It's ok bro we can all just report you and get you banned it's no big deal :pac:

Collie D

Is there not a huge conflict of interests with teams associating with bookies? I’m surprised it’s allowed and if an individual player did an ad I’m sure they’d be sanctioned. Then again Ruby Walsh was doing ads while still riding so who knows.

tayto lover

Collie D wrote: »

Is there not a huge conflict of interests with teams associating with bookies? I’m surprised it’s allowed and if an individual player did an ad I’m sure they’d be sanctioned. Then again Ruby Walsh was doing ads while still riding so who knows.

Two-faced Ruby you mean.

Shanotheslayer

Collie D wrote: »

Is there not a huge conflict of interests with teams associating with bookies? I’m surprised it’s allowed and if an individual player did an ad I’m sure they’d be sanctioned. Then again Ruby Walsh was doing ads while still riding so who knows.

Why would it be a conflict of interest for teams? In case they throw the game?

Father Hernandez

Collie D wrote: »

Is there not a huge conflict of interests with teams associating with bookies? I’m surprised it’s allowed and if an individual player did an ad I’m sure they’d be sanctioned. Then again Ruby Walsh was doing ads while still riding so who knows.

Massive grey area alright, Tripper’s ban was because he failed to ‘discourage’ his mates from betting on him moving club. Surprised it’s not talked about more.

Taking Arsenal as example as was the original tweet, imagine Bernd Leno tweeted that this morning due to a personal sponsorship. There would be mayhem.

Collie D

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Why would it be a conflict of interest for teams? In case they throw the game?

Yup. I know it’s unlikely at high level and in a team game compared to a low level tennis or boxing match but the two organisations are incompatible with their general aims IMO. All about the optics.

Shanotheslayer

I think the big difference in a player tweeting it and essentially a company is 1 is marketing and 1 is potentially ensuring a result.


Arsenal tweet - ''Over 2.5 blah blah'' they're marketing their betting sponser
Leno tweets - '' Over 2.5 '' and it comes across a lot more dodgy than the company doing it.

Trippier was always going to get pulled for giving his mates inside info. Also worth noting that bookies don't have to pay out on any bet
so they could always have refused to pay out

DM_7

Father Hernandez wrote: »

Whoops, sorry DM_7.

I was actually trying to do the opposite

Not at all, I just removed after my awkward use of my phone brought me to the betting site :pac:

DM_7

Paul Scholes was charged by the FA for placing bets in football on the basis those who work infootball should not bet on it.

An FA spokesman explained the distinction now used is whether someone is a participant in football, a catch-all description intended to include players, managers, owners, agents and anyone working within the game. “The rule of thumb is that if you work in football you cannot bet on football,” the spokesman said. “It doesn’t matter if it is a bet on a different club or a different country. If you are a participant in football, all bets are off

Clubs using their social media to further promote betting and even using their players in the promotion does not sit with that. Even ignoring the much wider issues of betting and its impact on some people.

Other examples:

Wayne Rooney joined Derby and just 'happened' to wear the squad number that matched the name of the betting company on the front of the kit.

We had the scenario of a 16 year Jude Bellingham playing with a betting company on the front of his club kit for Birmingham City (i am sure other under 18s have had that scenario).

Yesterday we had the betting company sponsored Stoke City v the betting company sponsored Watford in the betting company sponsored championship live from the betting company sponsored stadium

*above are efl examples

bangkok

Rooneys move to derby was fully funded by a betting company, 32red, he wore 32 on his jersey as well. Not right imo

CSF

It is definitely wrong, and I can’t imagine many clubs are innocents in this. I reckon they all have a gambling partner. That Arsenal tweet certainly feels like new ground though.

Shanotheslayer

CSF wrote: »

It is definitely wrong

Morally? Or how?

CSF

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Morally? Or how?

Morally. Gambling companies are predatory. Even the content of the advertising is designed to mislead.

It would be my opinion that the kind of people who are suited to gamble responsibly are not the same kinds of people who are targeted by the usual kind of advertising.

Shanotheslayer

CSF wrote: »

Morally. Gambling companies are predatory. Even the content of the advertising is designed to mislead.

It would be my opinion that the kind of people who are suited to gamble responsibly are not the same kinds of people who are targeted by the usual kind of advertising.

Yeh I suppose I agree but that shouldn't mean the company can't advertise. Albeit it's everywhere you look now. What about Alcohol sponsers? The ones that come to mind are Carlsberg/Chang off the top of my head.

CSF

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Yeh I suppose I agree but that shouldn't mean the company can't advertise. Albeit it's everywhere you look now. What about Alcohol sponsers? The ones that come to mind are Carlsberg/Chang off the top of my head.

Well, my opinion would be across the board. Genuine life ruining companies should not be allowed advertise (if at all) to the exact markets who are most likely to have their lives ruined.

Watch a bit of garbage daytime tv, and you will see similar. Slot machines and bingo ads everywhere. Literally trying to create gambling addictions to generate profit.

These companies do not even let people win beyond short term. You will be banned or have your account limited. They are literally only accepting people who will lose their money to them.

Shanotheslayer

CSF wrote: »

Well, my opinion would be across the board. Genuine life ruining companies should not be allowed advertise (if at all) to the exact markets who are most likely to have their lives ruined.

Watch a bit of garbage daytime tv, and you will see similar. Slot machines and bingo ads everywhere. Literally trying to create gambling addictions to generate profit.

These companies do not even let people win beyond short term. You will be banned or have your account limited. They are literally only accepting people who will lose their money to them.

I agree, but people need to take personal responsibility. The world shouldn't be suited/changed for those in the minority. I wouldn't even know a figure of how many people are addicted etc, There are also plenty of betting companies that don't ban/limit you when in profit. Alot of the ones you see promoting would though.

tayto lover

All gambling advertisements should be banned from television. Simple as.
I’ve seen what gambling does to people and their families often.

CSF

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

I agree, but people need to take personal responsibility. The world shouldn't be suited/changed for those in the minority. I wouldn't even know a figure of how many people are addicted etc, There are also plenty of betting companies that don't ban/limit you when in profit. Alot of the ones you see promoting would though.

Can you explain, who other than the gambling companies benefit from this kind of advertising?

I feel like I’ve demonstrated the arguments for this being a really bad thing for a lot of people, but haven’t seen a counter argument to how other people would be negatively impacted by this advertising being forbidden.

Even the majority of people who work in the gambling industry don’t benefit from this, because the push towards online gambling only makes the physical betting shops (particularly small independent ones) less viable anyway.

Shanotheslayer

CSF wrote: »

Can you explain, who other than the gambling companies benefit from this kind of advertising?

I feel like I’ve demonstrated the arguments for this being a really bad thing for a lot of people, but haven’t seen a counter argument to how other people would be negatively impacted by this advertising being forbidden.

Even the majority of people who work in the gambling industry don’t benefit from this, because the push towards online gambling only makes the physical betting shops (particularly small independent ones) less viable anyway.

Who benefits from the advertising? Well the company who allows them to do it. So using Arsenal as the example they would benefit by promoting it. The people who back it and win benefit(Albeit that is a big variable).

My point isn't really who does it benefit. My point is more so companies should be allowed advertise and the consumer needs to take the responsibility of if they choose to follow that advertisement.

I've benefitted myself plenty from their advertisements albeit I would have been gambling slightly different to what their target audience was

Quazzie

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Who benefits from the advertising? Well the company who allows them to do it. So using Arsenal as the example they would benefit by promoting it. The people who back it and win benefit(Albeit that is a big variable).

My point isn't really who does it benefit. My point is more so companies should be allowed advertise and the consumer needs to take the responsibility of if they choose to follow that advertisement.

I've benefitted myself plenty from their advertisements albeit I would have been gambling slightly different to what their target audience was

Betting should be treated the same way as cigarettes in regards advertising.

CSF

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Who benefits from the advertising? Well the company who allows them to do it. So using Arsenal as the example they would benefit by promoting it. The people who back it and win benefit(Albeit that is a big variable).

My point isn't really who does it benefit. My point is more so companies should be allowed advertise and the consumer needs to take the responsibility of if they choose to follow that advertisement.

I've benefitted myself plenty from their advertisements albeit I would have been gambling slightly different to what their target audience was

Of course the conversation should be about who does it benefit. Why should/do we as a society wilfully permit things that are clearly not to the greater good.

Things like drug empires, human trafficking, dog fighting rings, murder for hire industries, they all generate profit for a number of people also. They’re illegal because they ruin lives. In a world where people should be allowed do what they want, because who are we to stop them, when these things only affect a minority, these things would all exist.

Now gambling is a little bit different, because gambling in itself is not necessarily life ruining in itself. I do not think gambling should be illegal in the same way that human trafficking is, because gambling is not always bad. It doesn’t always ruin lives.

However, allowing these companies to target the 7% of gamblers who are vulnerable to having their lives ruined by this, that has the exact same effect. Lives are ruined.

Shanotheslayer

CSF wrote: »

Of course the conversation should be about who does it benefit. Why should/do we as a society wilfully permit things that are clearly not to the greater good.

Things like drug empires, human trafficking, dog fighting rings, murder for hire industries, they all generate profit for a number of people also. They’re illegal because they ruin lives. In a world where people should be allowed do what they want, because who are we to stop them, when these things only affect a minority, these things would all exist.

Now gambling is a little bit different, because gambling in itself is not necessarily life ruining in itself. I do not think gambling should be illegal in the same way that human trafficking is, because gambling is not always bad. It doesn’t always ruin lives.

However, allowing these companies to target the 7% of gamblers who are vulnerable to having their lives ruined by this, that has the exact same effect. Lives are ruined.

The situations as you said are completely different. One is illegal one isn't.Where did you get the 7% figure from?

I have no problem with a reduction in the advertisement for it similar to cigarettes/alcohol. However I am fully against getting rid of it completely.

Quazzie

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

However I am fully against getting rid of it completely.

Why?

CSF

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

The situations as you said are completely different. One is illegal one isn't. Is it Where did you get the 7% figure from?

I have no problem with a reduction in the advertisement for it similar to cigarettes/alcohol. However I am fully against getting rid of it completely.

How does legality come into a moral conversation?

7% is the percentage of gamblers who are likely to develop gambling problems.

To touch on your point there, I don’t think the advertising of cigarettes on the television is legal at all. Football clubs would not be permitted to advertise them either. So yes, I agree gambling companies and alcohol should really be the same.

And simultaneously people should be allowed have a few cans or a smoke if they want them also.

Shanotheslayer

Quazzie wrote: »

Why?

I don't think a minority should take away from a majority. The figure provided was 7% so going on the basis of that 93% lives aren't ruined.

As I said there are benefits to the companies promoting what they do for the consumer, it's just up to the consumer to see that.

For example previously a betting company used to advertise a sign up offer of I think it was €200 if you deposited €200 or €10 if you deposited €10 etc. This can be taken advantage of in many ways however I'm sure your casual punter will lose it but that's not the betting companies fault.

Shanotheslayer

CSF wrote: »

How does legality come into a moral conversation?

7% is the percentage of gamblers who are likely to develop gambling problems.

To touch on your point there, I don’t think the advertising of cigarettes on the television is legal at all. Football clubs would not be permitted to advertise them either. So yes, I agree gambling companies and alcohol should really be the same.

And simultaneously people should be allowed have a few cans or a smoke if they want them also.

You asked for a benefit. I gave you who it benefits your counter was with illegal activities. I can't recall the cigarettes one, I remember seeing them etc and how bad they where but I don't really watch TV anymore so don't recall. I think alcohol is after 10:00PM?

As I said you're saying 7% but where is that figure from? 7% of gamblers, how much of a volume is that? Does that include people who do the Lotto?

Guy:Incognito

All advertisement is predatory.

CSF

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

I don't think a minority should take away from a majority. The figure provided was 7% so going on the basis of that 93% lives aren't ruined.

As I said there are benefits to the companies promoting what they do for the consumer, it's just up to the consumer to see that.

For example previously a betting company used to advertise a sign up offer of I think it was €200 if you deposited €200 or €10 if you deposited €10 etc. This can be taken advantage of in many ways however I'm sure your casual punter will lose it but that's not the betting companies fault.

So you think more than 7% of people legitimately benefit from this? Since you refer to it as a majority. You genuinely believe 8% of people see an actual benefit from gambling advertising?

My argument was never that a person could not hypothetically make a profit when making some bets.

Shanotheslayer

CSF wrote: »

So you think more than 7% of people legitimately benefit from this? Since you refer to it as a majority. You genuinely believe 8% of people see an actual benefit from gambling advertising?

Not about more than 7% legitimately benefiting. It's I believe more than 7% are not effected by it. So, why should it be catered to the 7% that are effected by it? Again that figure could be more or less I have no idea I'm just going by the figure you provided.

CSF

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Not about more than 7% legitimately benefiting. It's I believe more than 7% are not effected by it. So, why should it be catered to the 7% that are effected by it? Again that figure could be more or less I have no idea I'm just going by the figure you provided.

Ok, so to conclude, if only 7% of people are affected by a thing, said thing is ok?

May I ask what the percentage of people that would need to start being affected by a thing, before you would start to see drastic action as necessary?

Fitz*

I suppose for full transparency, I do like a flutter on the football. A lot of people do.

Tobacco sponsorship is banned afaik and I think betting should be too. It's too dangerous but a big thing too is that clubs are relying on on betting sponsorship too much. Very heavily reliant in some cases which is a worry.

I think the biggest problem myself is the whole 'banter' and 'friends' or 'its gas craic to have losing acca' type personas that the bookies have. Paddy Power are masters at it. They make it acceptable that every young lad has to have a weekend accumulator and it's normal to have bets that lose etc. A pint and a bet are needed for every game sitting beside your mates.

So many of the betting companies are random Asian sites too and with the risk of sounding xenophobic I think this is a bit wrong too. Money coming into a Championship team from a random town in China with the Chinese company hoping to get income back from the random small town in the North East of England. We have seen the worst of what can happen here, allegedly with Wigan, when gambling sites etc get too much of a hold of clubs and influence decisions there.

That's one side of it. But then you have the likes of bet365 who grew from a small local bookies in Stoke and grew and eventually transformed the club. That's a local businesswoman who went big and plowed money into her hometown club. Does she not have the right to sponsor her club Stoke City, with her own company, which is based in Stoke. It's one of the few examples remaining of a local company sponsoring a local team. Bring back the days of Newcastle Brown Ale I say!

For the younger generation, especially u18s, there is a lot of money being put into gambling in FIFA without the users or parents realising. Players purchase coins which can be used to buy new players for their team etc but they can't chose the players. It's a lottery of who they get and more limited edition players are available every week etc. It's encouraging kids to gamble their coins and get rewards. It's laying the foundations for gambling when they are older.

Shanotheslayer

CSF wrote: »

Ok, so to conclude, if only 7% of people are affected by a thing, said thing is ok?

May I ask what the percentage of people that would need to start being affected by a thing, before you would start to see drastic action as necessary?

Well that completely depends on the thing doesn't it? At what point does personal responsibility come into it?

Shanotheslayer

Fitz* wrote: »

For the younger generation, especially u18s, there is a lot of money being put into gambling in FIFA without the users or parents realising. Players purchase coins which can be used to buy new players for their team etc but they can't chose the players. It's a lottery of who they get and more limited edition players are available every week etc. It's encouraging kids to gamble their coins and get rewards. It's laying the foundations for gambling when they are older.

Completely agree this is a massive issue. I think France tried to change it on their FIFA ultimate packs or something

CSF

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Well that completely depends on the thing doesn't it? At what point does personal responsibility come into it?

Ok. I’ll rephrase, what percentage of gamblers would need to be affected by THIS thing for you to determine that gambling advertising should be taken off the airwaves and out of our football clubs?

In relation to personal responsibility, I absolutely believe it’s a thing, but people have varying degrees of vulnerability and varying degrees of intelligence and only one of these 2 things needs to be the case for someone to become hooked. Intelligent people can be vulnerable too to becoming hooked, and their families don’t usually get to take that much personal responsibility for the outcome.

Hodors Appletart

it's absolutely insiduous at this stage and that Arsenal tweet was a disgrace

if players are getting bans for chatting to their mates about their lives, then clubs tweeting about in-play betting or matches involving themselves then there are questions

Gambling is as bad or worse than physical addiction like alcohol, nicotine and we control those things

looking at the telly and seeing ads aimed at people who are likely already problem gamblers is sickening really.

Hodors Appletart

full disclosure, I have an account with a betting firm and I regularly make bets (small amounts) on their specials and power price type scenarios.

Shanotheslayer

CSF wrote: »

Ok. I’ll rephrase, what percentage of gamblers would need to be affected by THIS thing for you to determine that gambling advertising should be taken off the airwaves and out of our football clubs?

In relation to personal responsibility, I absolutely believe it’s a thing, but people have varying degrees of vulnerability and varying degrees of intelligence and only one of these 2 things needs to be the case for someone to become hooked. Intelligent people can be vulnerable too to becoming hooked, and their families don’t usually get to take that much personal responsibility for the outcome.

I would be looking for above 10% at a minimum. Even then that's somewhat low 1 in 10 people effected. Taking into account the personal ability aspect of say 10 people in 100.

Absolutely agree that people have varying degress of intelligence and vulnerability, however it's not up to me to care for these people. I'm completely selfish that way. Why should I care? I know alcoholics closely, I'm not against alcohol marketing. The same way I know people that have been effected by gambling. Its up to them to sort themselves out. The world shouldn't revolve around them

CSF

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

I would be looking for above 10% at a minimum. Even then that's somewhat low 1 in 10 people effected. Taking into account the personal ability aspect of say 10 people in 100.

Absolutely agree that people have varying degress of intelligence and vulnerability, however it's not up to me to care for these people. I'm completely selfish that way. Why should I care? I know alcoholics closely, I'm not against alcohol marketing. The same way I know people that have been effected by gambling. Its up to them to sort themselves out. The world shouldn't revolve around them

Ok, to conclude, I completely disagree with you. I do care about these people. We clearly have a very different world view. I will leave it there.

Shanotheslayer

CSF wrote: »

Ok, to conclude, I completely disagree with you. I do care about these people. We clearly have a very different world view. I will leave it there.

That's fair enough mate no problem at all

Shanotheslayer

Just noticed that the links the premier league clubs are using to promote their bookies are affiliate links(Well the Burnley twitter one was) meaning that they are profiting whenever anybody clicks that link and places a bet that loses. Poor form from the clubs to be looking to benefit like that.

The cash they would make from it would be so minimal I imagine.

Oat23

The US is legalising gambling now too and it's a disaster waiting to happen.

Gambling has been legal in Illinois since March, and this season whenever I'm watching Bulls games there are constant gambling commercials. There's an ad break every 10-15 minutes and every one has commercials for various gambling apps now available in the state, starring local sports stars/legends like former Chicago Bear player Devin Hester. If there's a timeout they go to a double box and play a gambling ad in one of the boxes. Same for free throws. Every night young people are turning on NBC Sports Chicago to watch the Bulls or Blackhawks and seeing this crap.

Worst of all, 21 local 'Fox Sports' channels around the country are going to be rebranded this year to Bally Sports. Bally is a casino over there. They will be showing almost all of the live games from 42 teams in the NBA, NHL and MLB on these channels and will basically turn the entire game into a gambling ad.

It's like the wild west over there right now when it comes to gambling advertising regulations.

https://awfulannouncing.com/local-networks/sinclair-partnership-with-bally-naming-rights-fox-sports-regional-networks.html