Live data from Hacker News

Premier league bans gambling sponsors

footyheadlines.com

31–40 of 129 posts

Re: Premier league bans gambling sponsors

#31

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.

Re: Premier league bans gambling sponsors

#32
post #21

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

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.

Re: Premier league bans gambling sponsors

#33

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.

Re: Premier league bans gambling sponsors

#34

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.

Re: Premier league bans gambling sponsors

#35

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.

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.

Re: Premier league bans gambling sponsors

#36

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".

Re: Premier league bans gambling sponsors

#37
post #21

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.

Re: Premier league bans gambling sponsors

#38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps they should ban news sites that cover gambling.

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 ?

Re: Premier league bans gambling sponsors

#39
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

[deleted]

Re: Premier league bans gambling sponsors

#40
post #21

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

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.

Post reply on HN