Live data from Hacker News

Premier league bans gambling sponsors

footyheadlines.com

91–100 of 129 posts

Re: Premier league bans gambling sponsors

#91
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While your assessment may be true, I don’t think the mere ratification of the amendment makes the argument. It’s much more complicated. The passing of the 18th was done through a highly organized and motivated cross-party political bloc that would throw an election to punish anyone that did not align with the dry agenda. This stacked the representative government in their favor, even if it did not match actual sentim…

By your numbers 27% did not. Already that is a significant minority. There are an unknown number in your 73% that support things like the amendment, but not that particular one. Speaking as an American only a tiny number are really the hard core individualists that OP is trying to reduce is to. The majority have inclinations that way but their beliefs are much more complex and cannot be reduced that far.

> Speaking as an American only a tiny number are really the hard core individualists that OP is trying to reduce is to.

I'm an American who has lived abroad for many years and married into a less individualistic/more collectivist culture.

It's very easy to see how individualistic the US is comparatively speaking when you get the opportunity to step outside it.

Re: Premier league bans gambling sponsors

#92
post #85
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do have a rather unusual relationship with naffness in this country! It's very difficult to explain :-) New Zealand also has the same sort of church/community raffle culture, I gather; very much an export. The Conservatives did start the National Lottery in the 90s and it definitely tried to hang off the "good causes" thing, but as I detailed in another overlong comment, much of the UK's more disturbing gambling t…

It also explains the UK representatives for Eurovision in the last.. say 25 years (except Sam Rider in 2022). I've wondered if e.g. this year's very very naff send-in (Eins, Zwei, Drei (although, that was not an R)) was a deliberate attempt at an FU to the eurovision, or rather a genuine attempt that would speak to the populace. I'm leaning towards the latter now.

Not a deliberate FU, for sure. Sam Battle simply would not do that. I thought it was both fun and funny. But it was earnest and playful at the same time.

For us Eurovision is simply not something that registers as a serious thing; the years where it has been non-cheesy are few and far between. As a nation we find much (non-scandinavian, at least) Europop quite cheesy, with only a couple of exceptions.

Winning it earnestly is not something that happens when we try, and perhaps will not ever happen again. Europeans simply don't like us enough!

The last time we won was a rare moment in our recent history; literally two days before, a Europhile left-wing government led by a prime minister who spoke French fluently and counted a legendary flamenco guitarist as his friend had just won a landslide, and we entered a band that had already been famous with a pretty basic, stadium rock song. So it was a combination of happenstance and European proxy politics again.

So we enter fun things that better express how we feel about it. Europop often comes across as cheesy but the LMNC entry was out of love for it, not loathing.

We would, TBH, rather win it for something fun like this than win it for something serious. And I think Ireland shows you what happens if you train the big guns on the thing; repeatedly winning Eurovision nearly bankrupted RTÉ, as far as I recall.

FWIW my feeling is that we should quit Eurovision (if the EBU do not end it). Its time has past and it will not survive its current form.

Re: Premier league bans gambling sponsors

#93
post #86
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same with the drinks companies, they switched to explicitly advertising their zero alcohol beers.

That is in response to an actual trend. Alcohol has fallen out of favor these last few years.

It's a response to laws that prohibit advertising of alcohol in certain countries at certain times of the day. There may be a trend towards these products, but the prohibition prompted the advertising change.

Re: Premier league bans gambling sponsors

#94
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You're asking the US to do what is un-American. American culture is deeply individualistic." Americas have had no problem with blue laws historically [1], which are laws about what can be done on Sunday largely connected to religious observations, as well as laws on "vice" and entire vice police [2] organizations. It is no contradiction of individualism, and arguably a strong expression of it, to ensure that anythin…

The laws you're pointing to are just the other side of the same coin. The Protestant roots of the US are arguably one of the reasons American culture is so heavily focused on individual responsibility and the idea that people who are addicts are weak and undisciplined. https://www.madinamerica.com/2020/07/history-addiction-arden...

I think you're just stretching because it ruined your point and you refuse to admit it. I can't think of a bigger disproof of your point that Americans just let people do whatever and experience the consequences then applying the full force of law to banning the various things that are known to just hurt people without bringing anybody any gain like the hard drugs or, at least until recently, gambling.

What more is America supposed to do to remove this individual freedom from people? There is no bigger stick than the law.

Re: Premier league bans gambling sponsors

#95
post #93
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is in response to an actual trend. Alcohol has fallen out of favor these last few years.

It's a response to laws that prohibit advertising of alcohol in certain countries at certain times of the day. There may be a trend towards these products, but the prohibition prompted the advertising change.

Look at diageo stocks over 5 years, for ex. It is a real trend that people drink less in general: boomers the least, then genz.

Re: Premier league bans gambling sponsors

#96
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NASCAR no longer pursues the Winston cup, because tobacco advertising is banned. The Bud Bowl was discontinued becsause alcohol advertising is regulated. World Poker Tour was sponsored by (poker site).net instead of .com because advertising a real money poker site was unacceptable. I haven't watched in a long time, I dunno what their ads are like now. Restricting advertising is very American.

> ...because tobacco advertising is banned. Except that it isn't: https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-indus... And let's not talk about how the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement had the perverse effect of making states financially dependent on tobacco sales. The annual payouts fluctuate based on cigarette shipment volumes so states want tobacco sales to continue. If tobacco sales stop, the s…

> Except that it isn't

Your link includes bans on tv, transit, billboards, sponsorships, tobacco branding on non-tobacco items, etc.

Yes, there are a few venues where tobacco advertising is still permitted, but they can't sponsor a soccer team.

Re: Premier league bans gambling sponsors

#97
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The laws you're pointing to are just the other side of the same coin. The Protestant roots of the US are arguably one of the reasons American culture is so heavily focused on individual responsibility and the idea that people who are addicts are weak and undisciplined. https://www.madinamerica.com/2020/07/history-addiction-arden...

I think you're just stretching because it ruined your point and you refuse to admit it. I can't think of a bigger disproof of your point that Americans just let people do whatever and experience the consequences then applying the full force of law to banning the various things that are known to just hurt people without bringing anybody any gain like the hard drugs or, at least until recently, gambling. What more is A…

I think you just don't get it.

Individualism doesn't require a society free from rules, with every person allowed to do whatever they want.

The Protestant and Calvinist roots of American culture emphasize individual moral agency and personal accountability. This makes it easy to view things like addiction as a personal moral failure or lack of discipline rather than a systemic or biological illness.

At the same time, these same Protestant and Calvinist roots supported a level of paternalism in the form of blue laws, temperance movements, vice squads, etc.

You are arguing that laws regulating "sin", which are intended to promote public virtue, are evidence that the US really isn't individualistic because they're (in principle) taking away your ability to do whatever you want, but what you're missing is that criminalization contributes to the widely-held belief among Americans that people who break those laws are weak, undisciplined people making bad choices.

Most Americans don't view "sin" laws as social welfare. They view them as moral boundaries, and when someone crosses them (say, into addiction), the default is to place the blame on the individual's own willpower. You chose to do drugs. You got addicted because you couldn't control yourself. You failed at recovery because you're undisciplined.

This is pervasive in the US and it even extends to issues like poverty. Three-quarters of Republicans and over half of independents believe that personal choices are a major reason people are poor.

https://thehill.com/business/economy/5495065-americans-perso...

Which reminds me of one of Kurt Vonnegut's most insightful observations about American culture:

> America is the wealthiest nation on Earth, but its people are mainly poor, and poor Americans are urged to hate themselves. To quote the American humorist Kin Hubbard, 'It ain’t no disgrace to be poor, but it might as well be.' It is in fact a crime for an American to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by the American poor. They mock themselves and glorify their betters. The meanest eating or drinking establishment, owned by a man who is himself poor, is very likely to have a sign on its wall asking this cruel question: 'if you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?' There will also be an American flag no larger than a child’s hand – glued to a lollipop stick and flying from the cash register.

> Americans, like human beings everywhere, believe many things that are obviously untrue. Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for any American to make money. They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say Napoleonic times. Many novelties have come from America. The most startling of these, a thing without precedent, is a mass of undignified poor. They do not love one another because they do not love themselves.

Re: Premier league bans gambling sponsors

#98
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...because tobacco advertising is banned. Except that it isn't: https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-indus... And let's not talk about how the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement had the perverse effect of making states financially dependent on tobacco sales. The annual payouts fluctuate based on cigarette shipment volumes so states want tobacco sales to continue. If tobacco sales stop, the s…

> Except that it isn't Your link includes bans on tv, transit, billboards, sponsorships, tobacco branding on non-tobacco items, etc. Yes, there are a few venues where tobacco advertising is still permitted, but they can't sponsor a soccer team.

> ...but they can't sponsor a soccer team.

And? Tobacco companies spend more than $8 billion/year on marketing in the US. Advertising is not banned, and unless you think these billion-dollar companies (that states perversely depend on for revenue) are run by idiots, that money is producing ROI.

Re: Premier league bans gambling sponsors

#99
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Except that it isn't Your link includes bans on tv, transit, billboards, sponsorships, tobacco branding on non-tobacco items, etc. Yes, there are a few venues where tobacco advertising is still permitted, but they can't sponsor a soccer team.

> ...but they can't sponsor a soccer team. And? Tobacco companies spend more than $8 billion/year on marketing in the US. Advertising is not banned, and unless you think these billion-dollar companies (that states perversely depend on for revenue) are run by idiots, that money is producing ROI.

The topic is banning certain types of sponsors from soccer teams. Someone said it's unamerican, but tobacco is an example of a banned sponsor for soccer teams. Gambling could just as easily be banned from sponsoring sports.
Post reply on HN