Soccer relationship with betting (2021)

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.

Fr Tod Umptious · 30-01-2021 1:31pm

FortuneChip wrote: »

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.

I think it's this normalisation that grates with people like myself who are older.

When I were a lad the only sports that were associated with gambling were horseracing and greyhound racing.

But now because of enhanced statistical analysis, greater media coverage and the prevalence of online betting sports like soccer are becoming more associated with gambling.

So younger people have grown up with the idea that betting on the number of corners in a game is nothing out of the ordinary.

It's probably just the way of the world and the progress of technology really.

I'd bet people were giving out in 1862 about people being able to place wagers on the second or third placed horse and not only the first at the Blaydon races.

Mitch Connor · 02-02-2021 3:23pm

Trippier gets banned for talking to his firend about moving to a new country/changing clubs.

Arsenal do this:

MOD Snip of Arsenal tweet promoting betting with their betting partner (as well as advertising, the tweet features a link to the betting partners site)

really sits uneasy with me. Why is this ok?

Harry Palmr · 02-02-2021 3:34pm

It's not, it's wretched carry on. Cheapens Arsenal no end, this kind of thing you'd more associate with a Vanarama side.

The Gubberment across the water are revisiting betting advertising but I don't think that sort of thing would fall under the proposals

yourdeadwright · 02-02-2021 3:37pm

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Trippier gets banned for talking to his firend about moving to a new country/changing clubs.

Arsenal do this:

MOD Snip of Arsenal tweet promoting betting with their betting partner (as well as advertising, the tweet features a link to the betting partners site)

really sits uneasy with me. Why is this ok?

There two completely different things?

DM_7 · 02-02-2021 3:55pm

Mod: I removed the tweet as while discussion worthy it is also advertising even though that was clearly not the intention of posting it here.

Mitch Connor · 02-02-2021 3:58pm

yourdeadwright wrote: »

There two completely different things?

One is a guy talking to a friend about a subject that has no impact on sporting integrity or fair competition. the ony possibly losers here: Bookies.

the other is a club inducing fans to gamble on their own club conceding goals. and inducing them to gamble at all. With the use of players to advertise that gambling. which players aren't allowed to take part in.

One gets a ban, the other gets nadda.

Guy:Incognito · 02-02-2021 4:06pm

Mitch Connor wrote: »

One is a guy talking to a friend about a subject that has no impact on sporting integrity or fair competition. the ony possibly losers here: Bookies.

It's basically insider trading.

You might not like the bookies ,but that doesn't make stealing from them ok.

yourdeadwright · 02-02-2021 4:07pm

Mitch Connor wrote: »

One is a guy talking to a friend about a subject that has no impact on sporting integrity or fair competition. the ony possibly losers here: Bookies.

the other is a club inducing fans to gamble on their own club conceding goals. and inducing them to gamble at all. With the use of players to advertise that gambling. which players aren't allowed to take part in.

One gets a ban, the other gets nadda.

The club saying you can gamble on the unknow outcome of a game ,There just advertising a gambling website ,

Tripper is telling a friend to gamble on the know outcome of a transfer ,As he is the one person who can effect it , (Same thing happened to Daniel Sturridge )It's like a goal keeper betting on himself to concede 3 goals

Think of it like inside Trading ,

Players are all made aware of what they can and can to with regards gambling ,

I like you don't think clubs should advertise gambling I think its morally wrong, but I can see the difference in the two incidents

Neil3030 · 02-02-2021 4:14pm

Bookies set their odds so that punters lose in the long run. They also massively restrict successful accounts to reduce company exposure to variance and risk.

Their claim is that they are an "entertainment" service, and people shouldn't be gambling for long term profit.

So how on earth they can ever cry "insider trading" is beyond me.

JPA · 02-02-2021 4:16pm

The Trippier situation is weird.

A group of friends chatting, but he's basically meant to say 'No comment' to questions involving something so life changing.

yourdeadwright · 02-02-2021 4:25pm

JPA wrote: »

The Trippier situation is weird.

A group of friends chatting, but he's basically meant to say 'No comment' to questions involving something so life changing.

Yes unfortunately its one the things that comes with making millions of pounds a year playing football ,

CSF · 02-02-2021 4:26pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It's basically insider trading.

You might not like the bookies ,but that doesn't make stealing from them ok.

Haha, that second line is the begining of an absolute moral wormhole. 100 pages discussion.

JPA · 02-02-2021 4:34pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It's basically insider trading.

You might not like the bookies ,but that doesn't make stealing from them ok.

But the bookies themselves are insider trading? They would have contacts in every club in every sport going.

adaminho · 02-02-2021 4:34pm

https://twitter.com/AndyNaylorBHAFC/status/1356607011308376064?s=19

Neil3030 · 02-02-2021 4:38pm

adaminho wrote: »

https://twitter.com/AndyNaylorBHAFC/status/1356607011308376064?s=19

Failing financially and then abusing an Irish immigrant. I suppose that counts for 'entertainment' in the UK...

DM_7 · 02-02-2021 5:14pm

In the last week I split out threads re betting and another thread related to online abuse players receive - I did not expect two topics to merge like they have with what has happened to Connolly.

~Rebel~ · 02-02-2021 5:17pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It's basically insider trading.

You might not like the bookies ,but that doesn't make stealing from them ok.

Only because the bookies have decided that betting on where you live is a fair market that you are personally obligated to protect for them. Which it really isn’t. It cuts way too close to a mans life choices and away from sport. He wasn’t telling anyone the lineup for tomorrow’s game, he was talking to friends about big life choices.

IMO those are the sorts of events that if bookies want to offer odds on, they should have zero protection on them. A football match is a closed, controlled system. Life is not.

Guy:Incognito · 02-02-2021 5:29pm

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Only because the bookies have decided that betting on where you live is a fair market that you are personally obligated to protect for them. Which it really isn’t. It cuts way too close to a mans life choices and away from sport. He wasn’t telling anyone the lineup for tomorrow’s game, he was talking to friends about big life choices.

IMO those are the sorts of events that if bookies want to offer odds on, they should have zero protection on them. A football match is a closed, controlled system. Life is not.

It's not betting on where you live . It's betting on what club you are moving too. Plus, it's not general information everyone knows, it's very specific information to specific people .

It's not like it's a new thing, he's not the first player to be done for it.

It's the same as a player finding out who the next manager is going to be and telling his mates so they can bet on it.

sabat · 02-02-2021 5:38pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It's not betting on where you live . It's betting on what club you are moving too. Plus, it's not general information everyone knows, it's very specific information to specific people .

It's not like it's a new thing, he's not the first player to be done for it.

It's the same as a player finding out who the next manager is going to be and telling his mates so they can bet on it.

But how does it affect the integrity of the game which is the FA's job, as opposed to the integrity of the bookies' bottom line which is none of their business?

~Rebel~ · 02-02-2021 5:41pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It's not betting on where you live . It's betting on what club you are moving too. Plus, it's not general information everyone knows, it's very specific information to specific people .

It's not like it's a new thing, he's not the first player to be done for it.

It's the same as a player finding out who the next manager is going to be and telling his mates so they can bet on it.

And why should those markets be protected?

Sport betting is on the outcome of sporting events. It's important the integrity of those sporting events is protected. But why should every single aspect of life outside that also be given the same protection?

I'm not even sure markets should be offered by bookies for those things - but if they choose to open the market, they should be in no way entitled to protection on it. It's got absolutely nothing to do with them, or with the sporting events they cover.

All it is is strongarming by an industry that is reaching ever further, and a weak FA bending over backwards to appease them.

howiya · 02-02-2021 5:59pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It's not betting on where you live . It's betting on what club you are moving too. Plus, it's not general information everyone knows, it's very specific information to specific people .

How are the bookies able to produce odds on such markets? What are their sources for this specific information?

Shanotheslayer · 02-02-2021 7:11pm

JPA wrote: »

The Trippier situation is weird.

A group of friends chatting, but he's basically meant to say 'No comment' to questions involving something so life changing.

Maybe tell your mates in person instead of text messages would be a good start :pac:

Mitch Connor · 02-02-2021 9:25pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It's basically insider trading.

You might not like the bookies ,but that doesn't make stealing from them ok.

So let the bookies or police deal with it. Why is it for the FA to police?

Mitch Connor · 02-02-2021 9:27pm

~Rebel~ wrote: »

And why should those markets be protected?

Sport betting is on the outcome of sporting events. It's important the integrity of those sporting events is protected. But why should every single aspect of life outside that also be given the same protection?

I'm not even sure markets should be offered by bookies for those things - but if they choose to open the market, they should be in no way entitled to protection on it. It's got absolutely nothing to do with them, or with the sporting events they cover.

All it is is strongarming by an industry that is reaching ever further, and a weak FA bending over backwards to appease them.

100%.

If they want to take bets on managers movements or player movements, let them shoulder this risk. Imo it simply isn't something the FA should concern itself with.

02-02-2021 9:30pm

Oat23 wrote: »

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

It's pretty nuts. AFAIK as they've legalised weed they've had the sense to have rules on advertising etc., legalising something and leaving it so wide open right away is mental.

JPA · 02-02-2021 10:15pm

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Maybe tell your mates in person instead of text messages would be a good start :pac:

Maybe so. If he had would it still have been investigated? I'd suspect it would have been but there would have been no evidence.

The largest bet placed on his move was £65.
So how did the bookies find out about this? Was such a small amount flagged?

~Rebel~ · 02-02-2021 10:28pm

JPA wrote: »

Maybe so. If he had would it still have been investigated? I'd suspect it would have been but there would have been no evidence.

The largest bet placed on his move was £65.
So how did the bookies find out about this? Was such a small amount flagged?

It's a very small market, so repeated bets in small figures from a small number of accounts draws attention. It's also a unique enough move - to Atleti, rather than Southampton or something - for people to be asking for a market on.

Guy:Incognito · 02-02-2021 10:45pm

Mitch Connor wrote: »

So let the bookies or police deal with it. Why is it for the FA to police?

Players get banned for off the field stuff, ie Cavani only a month ago.

They know the rules.

sabat wrote: »

But how does it affect the integrity of the game which is the FA's job, as opposed to the integrity of the bookies' bottom line which is none of their business?

Because plenty of aspects of football related betting very much affects the integrity of football at its most serious levels, so theres a blanket ban on anything related to it from footballers. Again, refer to "they know the rules"

~Rebel~ · 02-02-2021 11:10pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Players get banned for off the field stuff, ie Cavani only a month ago.

They know the rules.

Because plenty of aspects of football related betting very much affects the integrity of football at its most serious levels, so theres a blanket ban on anything related to it from footballers. Again, refer to "they know the rules"

We know that it falls within the rules. Our position is that the rules regarding the FA blatantly protecting betting companies profits - rather than the integrity of the game - are utterly ridiculous for all the reasons already outlined.

Mitch Connor · 03-02-2021 8:24am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

, so theres a blanket ban on anything related to it from footballers. Again, refer to "they know the rules"

Except for advertising it as something fun and great to do.

Bobby Baccala · 03-02-2021 10:12am

Always found it strange how Stoke were happy to change their stadium name from The Britannia which actually sounds kinda impressive to the Bet365 stadium. Obviously money talks and that but I wonder how it made the fans feel.

adaminho · 03-02-2021 11:27am

Bobby Baccala wrote: »

Always found it strange how Stoke were happy to change their stadium name from The Britannia which actually sounds kinda impressive to the Bet365 stadium. Obviously money talks and that but I wonder how it made the fans feel.

You do know they're both owned by the same person. Peter Coates was chairman of Stoke before founding Bet365 and used the money from it to get Stoke promoted.

FortuneChip · 03-02-2021 3:26pm

howiya wrote: »

How are the bookies able to produce odds on such markets? What are their sources for this specific information?

They'll say their odds are based on speculative assumptions, and then led by betting transactions (if multiple people bet on Player A to go to Team B, they'll shift the odds accordingly).

On the other point re: sporting event vs real life

Fully agree a person (first and foremost) should be able to discuss aspects of his personal life without fear of it impacting a financial betting market. It's a bit opportunistic of his mates etc to jump online and try profit from it, but I agree if a gambling company seeks to profit from transfer markets, they have to accept they may not be the first ones to have access to market-informing details. F*ck that!

Soccer relationship with betting (2021)

Comments