Gambling / Betfred

[gingerjon]

10 hours ago, Ragingbull said:

More unnecessary censorship. 

It's a voluntary decision.

[Just Browny]

This is obviously a strategic move by the Premier League. Make a voluntary gesture reducing gambling advertising which they can point to as an argument against legislative action. The Government might well be happy to go along with that as they have plenty of pro-gambling MPs on their own benches and will be happy to avoid anything that looks too nanny state before an election. Meanwhile the PL can continue with all the pitchside gambling ads and the rest of it.

If their gambit works it is actually good news for RL and buys a few years for us to find an alternative.

[Gavin Harrison]

Nothing more than a cosmetic exercise & won't impact RL going forward.

Anyone who watches football on Sky gets inundated with gambling adverts during coverage. Ray Winstone, Geoff Stelling et al, Bet 365  etc. 

I've never placed a single bet with Betfred..Clearly their sponsorship hasn't worked.

Vapes have replaced cigarettes, what other vice will replace gambling?

Edited April 14, 2023 by Gavin Harrison

[RigbyLuger]

51 minutes ago, Gavin Harrison said:

Vapes have replaced cigarettes, what other vice will replace gambling?

Cyrpto/NFTs.

[Copa]

I’d love for gambling sponsorship to be banned here in Australia. Promoting gambling on family television and at family events is appalling.

[Tommygilf]

What is interesting from the premier league clubs here is that most, if not all, of the betting sponsors on the front of shirts are for non British market gambling companies. They are often weird shell companies with landing sites aimed at Chinese markets (where gambling is illegal iirc). They aren't betfred, bet 365 or sky bet (EFL aside).

This is as much an aesthetic choice rather than a choice that will impact British based fans, imo.

[Anita Bath]

On 14/04/2023 at 03:00, northamptoncougar said:

What about the people that like smoking, drinking and gambling?

Advertising is not aimed at them, they will carry on enjoying their lifestyle unaffected by advertising restrictions.

[Toby Chopra]

10 hours ago, Anita Bath said:

Advertising is not aimed at them, they will carry on enjoying their lifestyle unaffected by advertising restrictions.

Advertising is absolutely aimed at existing users, it's as much about brand loyalty and customer capture as encouraging new starters. 

Governments around the world basically made the decision they didn't want anyone smoking so the fag ad bans were as much about disrupting existing consumption along with other measures. It's largely worked in much of the developed world. 

Alcohol and gambling will remain part of adult society in my view, so advertising will definitely remain and the companies will be desperate for it. The issue both those industries have is how to promote "healthy consumption" and prohibit children partaking, while at the same time plastering the brand everywhere.

As long as our partners keep on top of those two tasks - healthy gambling/kids - then we can keep going, and even have them as headline sponsors. I struggle to make sense of the EPL decision, but then football operates in a different realm, it's more than just a sport.

 

[ATLANTISMAN]

On 14/04/2023 at 06:49, Just Browny said:

This is obviously a strategic move by the Premier League. Make a voluntary gesture reducing gambling advertising which they can point to as an argument against legislative action. The Government might well be happy to go along with that as they have plenty of pro-gambling MPs on their own benches and will be happy to avoid anything that looks too nanny state before an election. Meanwhile the PL can continue with all the pitchside gambling ads and the rest of it.

If their gambit works it is actually good news for RL and buys a few years for us to find an alternative.

SKYBET have exclusive rights for pitch side advertising throughout the Premier League/EPL unless a club has a shirt sponsor or official gambling partner (FA Cup is a free for all) 90% of it is aimed at the asian market.

2 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Advertising is absolutely aimed at existing users, it's as much about brand loyalty and customer capture as encouraging new starters. 

Governments around the world basically made the decision they didn't want anyone smoking so the fag ad bans were as much about disrupting existing consumption along with other measures. It's largely worked in much of the developed world. 

Alcohol and gambling will remain part of adult society in my view, so advertising will definitely remain and the companies will be desperate for it. The issue both those industries have is how to promote "healthy consumption" and prohibit children partaking, while at the same time plastering the brand everywhere.

As long as our partners keep on top of those two tasks - healthy gambling/kids - then we can keep going, and even have them as headline sponsors. I struggle to make sense of the EPL decision, but then football operates in a different realm, it's more than just a sport.

 

 

[Adelaide Tiger]

As one or two have pointed, and I agree, the current action by the PL is a minimalist and token offer.

If PL clubs were so concerned about the impact of gambling then they could have banned gambling completely from the game and set a precedent that other sports would have been compelled to follow.  So why didn’t they?  We are talking about a League that attracts a billion quid plus each year from sponsorship so why do they need to retain gambling sponsorship on sleeves and pitch side advertising?

P.S. Why didn’t the PL also ban players from wearing their socks above their knees …….. now that does irritate me!

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

As one or two have pointed, and I agree, the current action by the PL is a minimalist and token offer.

If PL clubs were so concerned about the impact of gambling then they could have banned gambling completely from the game and set a precedent that other sports would have been compelled to follow.  So why didn’t they?

Because perfect is the enemy of good?