Soccer relationship with betting (2021)

Shanotheslayer · 23-01-2021 2:48pm

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 · 23-01-2021 2:49pm

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

However I am fully against getting rid of it completely.

Why?

CSF · 23-01-2021 2:54pm

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 · 23-01-2021 2:54pm

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 · 23-01-2021 2:57pm

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 · 23-01-2021 3:03pm

All advertisement is predatory.

CSF · 23-01-2021 3:04pm

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 · 23-01-2021 3:08pm

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 · 23-01-2021 3:12pm

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* · 23-01-2021 3:14pm

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 · 23-01-2021 3:17pm

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 · 23-01-2021 3:22pm

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 · 23-01-2021 3:23pm

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 · 23-01-2021 3:26pm

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 · 23-01-2021 3:27pm

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 · 23-01-2021 3:28pm

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 · 23-01-2021 3:31pm

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 · 23-01-2021 3:32pm

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 · 23-01-2021 7:51pm

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 · 24-01-2021 5:01am

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

Optimalprimerib · 24-01-2021 5:24am

The ironic thing is that the ad on this thread for me is a company that allows you to build your own bet.

I think that similar to removing cigarette ads from sports, all advertisement and sponsorship to betting companies should be banned.

thenightman · 24-01-2021 5:32am

The difficulty (especially now with no fans in stadiums/matchday revenue) is that clubs will argue how are they supposed to replace the revenue lost by a ban on gambling advertising? especially for lower prem and division 1 clubs with no European money or big sponsorship deals like the big clubs have coming in.

POKERKING · 24-01-2021 11:39am

Someone asked for a benefit earlier in the thread, gambling creates a serious amount of jobs. It also brings alot of money into the exchequer(UK) as its heavily regulated.

Gambling responsibly is perfectly fine, in fact its a great hobby/past time, playing a slot game is no different to going to the cinema for some as long as you can afford what you gamble.

It does ruin lives in circumstances though, as does alcohol as does obesity etc so it needs a tighter amount of control. Its only a matter of time till the UKGC ban football advertisements, the issue currently is alot of clubs rely heavily on the revenue and now is not the time to be losing revenue. If covid hadn’t of hit i reckon the legislation would have come in already.

In Arsenals case, clubs just need to have a greater social responsibility esp through social media when it comes to these things.

CrabRevolution · 25-01-2021 9:27pm

There's a recent-ish ad that really got me thinking about how pervasive betting has become. Can't remember the company, but I presume it's meant to be one of a series of profiles of different betting personalities.

In any case the ad has an actor proudly claiming he's a "nodder", complete with a scene of him standing alone at the bar with his phone out, alternating between staring at the TV screen and staring at the phone in front of him placing bets.

I'd have imagined that would be held up as an example of a bad gambling experience; no real sense of entertainment or fulfilment by the sport itself, feeling a need to stay constantly gambling, no social aspect to it, spending your time totally consumed by the gambling etc. but no, we have a bookmakers instead holding it up as a positive or at least typical thing.

To me that's a bit crazy, it's like those drinkaware ads which start off mimicking drink ads but end up showing people making a mess of themselves drunk as they do in real life. But where those drink ads are clearly meant to be negative, the betting ads somehow try to show it as a positive.

FortuneChip · 29-01-2021 4:17pm

Used to be a frequent bettor. Used to work in the industry as well.
Completely despise the industry as a whole now and glad to have no betting accounts anymore.

The sheer volume of advertising is shocking.
We've got the big firms all fighting for space in the two/three sets of ads in the 30 minutes before KO.
Two more sets of ads at half-time and a quick round-up after the game.

Then, there's the ad boards a handful of times during the game showing off whatever sponsor.
And you've got multiple top tier teams sporting a betting sponsor on their jersey.

Arsenal's tweet is a new thing alright - but I've seen other social media channels like Bleacher Report now including Odds in their posts - without any Responsible Gambling messages - again, making the thought-process common place.

It's beyond normalising it, it's complete saturation, sensory overload.

There's no doubt gambling can be an enjoyable hobby for a majority of people - but the volume of ads being thrown at younger people with little exposure to/understanding of the negative consequence of gambling is a recipe for a disaster that Ireland certainly isn't equipped to deal with.

Weepsie · 29-01-2021 4:34pm

Gambling doesn't bother me so much, it's how it's advertised. It's the "you're missing out" if you don't gamble, or "you're not a man" if you do, and only tries to show the ultimate highs and such in their ads.

Horse racing which wouldn't exist without gambling doesn't shove it in my face the way football and a few other sports now do.

Fr Tod Umptious · 30-01-2021 2:05am

Weepsie wrote: »

Gambling doesn't bother me so much, it's how it's advertised. It's the "you're missing out" if you don't gamble, or "you're not a man" if you do, and only tries to show the ultimate highs and such in their ads.

Horse racing which wouldn't exist without gambling doesn't shove it in my face the way football and a few other sports now do.

It's real "laddish"
It's all about the "accas" and the "bantz"

They show the ultimate highs of winning with a last minute goal, but not the lows of your accumulator losing because some team you don't actually care about scored or conceded at the last minute.

Shanotheslayer · 30-01-2021 2:42am

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

It's real "laddish"
It's all about the "accas" and the "bantz"

They show the ultimate highs of winning with a last minute goal, but not the lows of your accumulator losing because some team you don't actually care about scored or conceded at the last minute.

Completely agree regarding the laddish, bantz and acca's. Bookies thrive on Acca's it's easy money to them.

But in relation to your second point, you hardly expect them to market when people lose money?

Fr Tod Umptious · 30-01-2021 9:15am

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Completely agree regarding the laddish, bantz and acca's. Bookies thrive on Acca's it's easy money to them.

But in relation to your second point, you hardly expect them to market when people lose money?

Of course they won't market the when you lose scenario but unfortunately for most it's the reality more often than not.

FortuneChip · 30-01-2021 11:14am

No they're not gonna show the lows of betting on a TV ad, but some level of transparency is required. It's a highly addictive product, and the gambling firms have tonnes of methods of keeping you in for as long as possible - bet in play on literally everything, on minute long markets, ability to cancel withdrawals enabling you to get back in on the action at any point, early payouts exist to give the "winner" a chance to place their next bet, it's not a "goodwill gesture" or whatever. They want you to continue the behaviour as quickly and frequently as possible.

So, when they chuck "gamble responsibly" at the end of the ad, they're saying "we've no intention of protecting you, that's your job."

Of course theres an element of self governance, but at least cigarette boxes show the effects of smoking - the effects of gambling are a lot harder to understand, and go unknown until it's too late.

I just think football teams are failing in their social responsibility to the millions of fans that follow them, normalising these products.

Soccer relationship with betting (2021)

Comments