Same happened in Italy, so all betting sites turned into "news" site so you would have teams being spored by "betting_company_name news". Useless. There's a proposal to be back to previous type of sponsorship.
it's a cat and mouse thing, but the truth is that there is no will to actually do it, because the party who championed this has since moved to other things, and clubs _want_ the money from betting companies because they're struggling to keep up with other leagues (especially since those sponsors _are_ allowed in other leagues).
It is. And while it is true that Italian Serie A struggles to be financially competitive with other top leagues, the important "detail" to keep in mind is that no football league is financially competitive with Premier League, and the gap only grows bigger and bigger every year.
Edit: also stadiums, but issues with building new stadiums are often caused by bureaucracy. Also the deals from bettong sites are not that great to be deciding factor of club can build a new stadium or not.
Still, better than allowing actual players, which are idols and role models for many young men, to directly promote that filth on-air during and around a match.
Title doesn't appear to be entirely accurate - it would seem they can still have gambling sponsors but can only wear their logos on the sleeves and training kit.
If I'm squeezing enough margin out of my customers that I can afford to sponsor a football team with some of the leftover cash then you probably don't want to deal with me.
Aramco was the most prominent sponsor in the World Cup, and Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan owns Man City and was subject to a campaign calling on the English Premier League to hold Mansour to account for the UAE's role in the war in Sudan.
Shades of grey, but I'll take the gambling companies any day of the week.
Unless they stop blasting the ads aimed at international markets e.g. "Premier Chinese Gaming Partner" around all the boards in the game this is very small fry in practice.
Except that — and I say this as a centre-left sort of person — almost none of this is the Conservatives' fault. Essentially all of the UK's gambling hellscape was triggered by massive deregulation by Tony Blair's first New Labour government from 1997, and subsequent governments have struggled to undo it.
UK political donations big enough to win a campaign used to be quite hard to come by. The big single donor money was in alcohol, tobacco or gambling.
(The big single-donor money now, clearly, is crypto, though the tories take vape industry money.)
Alcohol industry giants like Diageo tend to be politically neutral because they know that really any government could change the law on health grounds. The tobacco giants, at the time, wanted to hold back inevitable regulatory change and backed the Tories — Maggie Thatcher had been a Philip Morris consultant.
That left Blair talking to wealthy donors from the gambling industry pushing for widespread deregulation of a modernised, increasingly digital industry. He took the cash where the Tories would not.
Successive governments have been trying to claw back from what that decision (combined with a subsequent gambling taxation change) caused. Long term, it has been worse for the UK than any other single Blair policy and it has fully undone many community and health policies he introduced because it allowed the creation of the Fixed Odds Betting Terminal (FOBT), for example: a development so rapacious and predatory it makes drug dealers look like amateurs.
It has been very difficult to undo because the deregulation was so massive in scope, and as tobacco tax revenue collapsed after Blair's broadly successful tobacco regulation, the government became increasingly dependent on enormous gambling tax revenue to replace it (including, specifically, FOBT tax revenue).
So as much as I would like to blame the Tory government that followed for not doing enough — and they did not do enough, even when presented with clear evidence of FOBT harm — their hands were mostly tied.
Same needs to happen in the US with our sports leagues.
Then we need to make it something you can only do while physically present at a sports book.
I feel so sorry for the recovering gambling addicts who want to watch a game these days. You hit rock bottom, you put in the work, you start to pick yourself back up, and some d-bag starts blasting ads for gambling on your phone at every opportunity.
American culture is deeply individualistic. From a cultural perspective, a person who fails in their recovery from addiction is seen, ultimately, as being responsible for their failure. They'd typically be criticized for being weak and undisciplined, even if the fake kindness of American culture prevents most people from saying that out loud.
The 18th amendment disagrees. While there is a large "your own fault" for things like this, there is also a large "you shouldn't be allowed to do some stupid things".
Citing the 18th Amendment, which not only failed to stop the sale of alcoholic beverages but led to the creation of a massive black market, as a rebuttal to the fact that America is a highly individualistic culture in which people are largely considered responsible for their inability to regulate their own behavior, is very strange.
The 18th amendment proves that were are not that individualistic. If we were we never would have passed it.
The 18th amendment didn't stop the sale of alcohol, but it greatly reduced those sales. It did lead to a black market, but it overall did succeed in the aims of the supporters even if it wasn't perfect. Of course the supporters were not as numerous as they thought they were and so it was rolled back.
> The 18th amendment proves that were are not that individualistic.
And did the 13th Amendment prove that there was no racism in America? Does the 2nd Amendment prove that all Americans love guns?
The US is one of the most individualistic societies in the world. There is a significant amount of qualitative and quantitative research about this. Hofstede's cultural dimensions is probably the most popular "scoring" of this, but it's hardly the only reference.
There's a reason the idea of "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" originated in the US. If you've spent any time living abroad, especially in more collectivist societies (like those in Asia), you'd know how farcical it is to hold up the 18th Amendment as proof the US is not individualistic.
It was very American to restrict gambling, especially sports gambling, to very few physical locations until 2018.
The government of the state of New Jersey argued that the federal government should not be able to restrict states from allowing gambling, and the Supreme Court agreed, so now there are no limits since all the states compete with each other in a race to the bottom.
Even though this ruling would indicate that the federal government has no right to regulate things like cannabis consumption, 8 years later, the federal government still has the “right” to charge you with myriad felonies that should only be up to the states. So this is really all about money and power instead of principles.
I think sports gambling should be legal _and regulated_, just like a lot of other vices, and one of those regulations _absolutely has to be_ a complete firewall between sports betting and the business of sports. No sponsorship deals with players, stadiums, teams, leagues, broadcasts, anything else related to sports. We banned tobacco advertising, and that had tremendously positive societal results without banning tobacco.
Yes, that will make it harder for them to connect to customers and _that is the point_.
Again, there's a lot of nuance here that has been beautifully articulated to great comic effect 40 years ago - and very little has changed regarding the aims, motives and consequences.
The Proposal: Health minister Dr. Peter Thorn proposes a total ban on all cigarette advertising, point-of-sale displays, and sports sponsorship, alongside massive tax hikes.
The Conflict: Sir Humphrey Appleby defends the tobacco industry, arguing that smokers are "national benefactors" because tobacco tax funds the National Health Service and early deaths save the state money on pensions.
The Motive: Prime Minister Jim Hacker backs the anti-smoking campaign not purely for health, but as a clever diversion and weapon to force the Treasury to concede on his separate plans for tax cut
Sports gambling in the UK has been legal for a long time. I remember as a kid the bookies (shops where you had to go to make a bet) weren’t allowed any exterior windows and all looked absolutely grim. It was an appropriate barrier to have to cross in order to gamble. But today’s online gambling has broken all that down. It’s too accessible.
Same happened in Italy, so all betting sites turned into "news" site so you would have teams being spored by "betting_company_name news". Useless. There's a proposal to be back to previous type of sponsorship.
Same with the drinks companies, they switched to explicitly advertising their zero alcohol beers.
Perhaps they should ban news sites that cover gambling.
It is easy enough to ban obvious workaraounds as well if the will to do it is there.
it's a cat and mouse thing, but the truth is that there is no will to actually do it, because the party who championed this has since moved to other things, and clubs _want_ the money from betting companies because they're struggling to keep up with other leagues (especially since those sponsors _are_ allowed in other leagues).
"Keep up with other leagues" - is it to pay the top-rated players ?
It is. And while it is true that Italian Serie A struggles to be financially competitive with other top leagues, the important "detail" to keep in mind is that no football league is financially competitive with Premier League, and the gap only grows bigger and bigger every year.
Edit: also stadiums, but issues with building new stadiums are often caused by bureaucracy. Also the deals from bettong sites are not that great to be deciding factor of club can build a new stadium or not.
Party!!!
Still, better than allowing actual players, which are idols and role models for many young men, to directly promote that filth on-air during and around a match.
Title doesn't appear to be entirely accurate - it would seem they can still have gambling sponsors but can only wear their logos on the sleeves and training kit.
It's a step in the right direction, and at this point I'm happy for every improvement we get in our current gambling hellscape.
100% agree, it's a great step, the title is just misleading.
If I'm squeezing enough margin out of my customers that I can afford to sponsor a football team with some of the leftover cash then you probably don't want to deal with me.
on the other hand, do you know how much it costs to sponsor?
maybe it's relatively cheap, but nobody does it because football fans isn't that of a target
I don't know about this sport, but in other large sports it can costs millions per year to be a sponsor.
It varies, but in any case, I doubt it's cheap relative to much: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_football_sponsorship
True enough, but they become Patrons of the Arts in a sense.
Aramco was the most prominent sponsor in the World Cup, and Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan owns Man City and was subject to a campaign calling on the English Premier League to hold Mansour to account for the UAE's role in the war in Sudan.
Shades of grey, but I'll take the gambling companies any day of the week.
Gambling companies prey on teenagers with disgusting tactics. They are just as devoid of human decency.
Unless they stop blasting the ads aimed at international markets e.g. "Premier Chinese Gaming Partner" around all the boards in the game this is very small fry in practice.
Finally! I hope these betting sites will vanish.
Wanna bet?
Absolutely not! But I’m happy to predict…
I bet your prediction, whatever it is, will be accurate!
Everton to be deducted 9 points.
Even though we moved Stake to the sleeves this year.
I am surprised.
Why? well The Uk has two main parties, one of which runs gambling as a way to raise funds...
https://lottery.conservatives.com
Blimey. This surprised me. But I see Labour also run one.
I suspect more influential is gambling industry lobbying and sinecures.
I'm british.
The way that gambling companies target the poorest of society feels disgustingly predatory.
You can often tell the average income of an area based on how many betfreds and paddy powers there are on the high street.
Except that — and I say this as a centre-left sort of person — almost none of this is the Conservatives' fault. Essentially all of the UK's gambling hellscape was triggered by massive deregulation by Tony Blair's first New Labour government from 1997, and subsequent governments have struggled to undo it.
UK political donations big enough to win a campaign used to be quite hard to come by. The big single donor money was in alcohol, tobacco or gambling.
(The big single-donor money now, clearly, is crypto, though the tories take vape industry money.)
Alcohol industry giants like Diageo tend to be politically neutral because they know that really any government could change the law on health grounds. The tobacco giants, at the time, wanted to hold back inevitable regulatory change and backed the Tories — Maggie Thatcher had been a Philip Morris consultant.
That left Blair talking to wealthy donors from the gambling industry pushing for widespread deregulation of a modernised, increasingly digital industry. He took the cash where the Tories would not.
Successive governments have been trying to claw back from what that decision (combined with a subsequent gambling taxation change) caused. Long term, it has been worse for the UK than any other single Blair policy and it has fully undone many community and health policies he introduced because it allowed the creation of the Fixed Odds Betting Terminal (FOBT), for example: a development so rapacious and predatory it makes drug dealers look like amateurs.
It has been very difficult to undo because the deregulation was so massive in scope, and as tobacco tax revenue collapsed after Blair's broadly successful tobacco regulation, the government became increasingly dependent on enormous gambling tax revenue to replace it (including, specifically, FOBT tax revenue).
So as much as I would like to blame the Tory government that followed for not doing enough — and they did not do enough, even when presented with clear evidence of FOBT harm — their hands were mostly tied.
Finally! There is no worse scourge on society. Bookies are parasites.
unclear if the article says that prediction markets are gambling, otherwise this is a massive loophole
Finally!
Same needs to happen in the US with our sports leagues.
Then we need to make it something you can only do while physically present at a sports book.
I feel so sorry for the recovering gambling addicts who want to watch a game these days. You hit rock bottom, you put in the work, you start to pick yourself back up, and some d-bag starts blasting ads for gambling on your phone at every opportunity.
You're asking the US to do what is un-American.
American culture is deeply individualistic. From a cultural perspective, a person who fails in their recovery from addiction is seen, ultimately, as being responsible for their failure. They'd typically be criticized for being weak and undisciplined, even if the fake kindness of American culture prevents most people from saying that out loud.
The 18th amendment disagrees. While there is a large "your own fault" for things like this, there is also a large "you shouldn't be allowed to do some stupid things".
Citing the 18th Amendment, which not only failed to stop the sale of alcoholic beverages but led to the creation of a massive black market, as a rebuttal to the fact that America is a highly individualistic culture in which people are largely considered responsible for their inability to regulate their own behavior, is very strange.
The 18th amendment proves that were are not that individualistic. If we were we never would have passed it.
The 18th amendment didn't stop the sale of alcohol, but it greatly reduced those sales. It did lead to a black market, but it overall did succeed in the aims of the supporters even if it wasn't perfect. Of course the supporters were not as numerous as they thought they were and so it was rolled back.
> The 18th amendment proves that were are not that individualistic.
And did the 13th Amendment prove that there was no racism in America? Does the 2nd Amendment prove that all Americans love guns?
The US is one of the most individualistic societies in the world. There is a significant amount of qualitative and quantitative research about this. Hofstede's cultural dimensions is probably the most popular "scoring" of this, but it's hardly the only reference.
There's a reason the idea of "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" originated in the US. If you've spent any time living abroad, especially in more collectivist societies (like those in Asia), you'd know how farcical it is to hold up the 18th Amendment as proof the US is not individualistic.
It was very American to restrict gambling, especially sports gambling, to very few physical locations until 2018.
The government of the state of New Jersey argued that the federal government should not be able to restrict states from allowing gambling, and the Supreme Court agreed, so now there are no limits since all the states compete with each other in a race to the bottom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_v._National_Collegiate_...
Even though this ruling would indicate that the federal government has no right to regulate things like cannabis consumption, 8 years later, the federal government still has the “right” to charge you with myriad felonies that should only be up to the states. So this is really all about money and power instead of principles.
> and some d-bag starts blasting ads for gambling on your phone at every opportunity.
Or crypto. Which tweaks many of the same nerve endings.
I think sports gambling should be legal _and regulated_, just like a lot of other vices, and one of those regulations _absolutely has to be_ a complete firewall between sports betting and the business of sports. No sponsorship deals with players, stadiums, teams, leagues, broadcasts, anything else related to sports. We banned tobacco advertising, and that had tremendously positive societal results without banning tobacco.
Yes, that will make it harder for them to connect to customers and _that is the point_.
Again, there's a lot of nuance here that has been beautifully articulated to great comic effect 40 years ago - and very little has changed regarding the aims, motives and consequences.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0074qvc Yes Prime Minister, Season 1 Episode 3 'The Smoke Screen'
The Proposal: Health minister Dr. Peter Thorn proposes a total ban on all cigarette advertising, point-of-sale displays, and sports sponsorship, alongside massive tax hikes.
The Conflict: Sir Humphrey Appleby defends the tobacco industry, arguing that smokers are "national benefactors" because tobacco tax funds the National Health Service and early deaths save the state money on pensions.
The Motive: Prime Minister Jim Hacker backs the anti-smoking campaign not purely for health, but as a clever diversion and weapon to force the Treasury to concede on his separate plans for tax cut
Sports gambling in the UK has been legal for a long time. I remember as a kid the bookies (shops where you had to go to make a bet) weren’t allowed any exterior windows and all looked absolutely grim. It was an appropriate barrier to have to cross in order to gamble. But today’s online gambling has broken all that down. It’s too accessible.
they literally did not though? just cant have it front and center on the shirt. its like a slow march towards a higher moral ground
Unfortunately this means crypto will just take over completely.
Crypto is less worse than gambling and sports bets.
> and three clubs (Sunderland, Nottingham Forest, and Chelsea) currently without a front-of-shirt sponsor as a direct or indirect consequence.
Chelsea not having a front of shirt sponsor is completely unrelated. Their last sponsor was Three (the phone company) ant that was 2023 or so