Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- 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_.
by empath75 - 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
by piltdownman - 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.by afavour
- Everton to be deducted 9 points.
Even though we moved Stake to the sleeves this year.
by tclancy - 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.by physicsguy
- they literally did not though? just cant have it front and center on the shirt. its like a slow march towards a higher moral groundby altmanaltman
- Finally! There is no worse scourge on society. Bookies are parasites.
- > 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
by 7777777phil - 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.by fancyfredbot
- 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
by NooneAtAll3 - I think about that every time I walk into a bank with an elaborate building or a ton of staff hanging around.by tengbretson
- True enough, but they become Patrons of the Arts in a sense.by the_sleaze_
- Gambling feeds on human misery, it should never be normalized, they made the right decision.by peter_retief
- Wouldn't the real solution be to work on making life less miserable for the working class?by tacocataco
- They turned themselves into whores for sale to the highest bidder. I imagine if they could, cocaine brands would be on everyone's shirts and tattoo's on players foreheads.
Silly people still care about this crap.
by bastard_op - 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.
by lenerdenator - > 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.
by dofm - 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.
by ElProlactin - 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.by Hugsbox
- 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.
- 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.by raffa667
- Perhaps they should ban news sites that cover gambling.by danesparza
- Reminds me of the pokersite .net ads on poker coverage. The .net site was no money play gambling, the .com site they wouldn't mention was real money gambling, probably not legal in your jurisdiction.by toast0
- 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.by woodpanel
- Because the premier league introduced this voluntarily rather than in response to specific legislation, I doubt this kind of loophole finding will happen. A team skirting the rules with a technicality will just be called out and punished (and teams will be afraid of that because the league and its brand and the things connected to it, like TV coverage, are worth huge amounts of money)by dwroberts
- Same with the drinks companies, they switched to explicitly advertising their zero alcohol beers.by arpinum
- This argument matches a HN (and IT world) idea that the law is algorithmic or autistic. If Italy's government wanted to enforce that law, I'm sure they could.
If the law banned selling beer without a license, you can't sell a pen for $20 and include a free six pack, claiming 'I'm just selling pens!'. Regulatory agencies, prosecutors, and judges aren't idiots, and neither is your lawyer.
by mmooss