New Government Rules Mean No More Gambling Sponsorship

[Viscore]

Governments decide what things are allowed and not, so no one can oppose it unless the leader changes and who willing to lift the ban which was proposed in the earlier ruling period. But banning the sponsorship may not affect the gambling industry which only affects the revenue of the club.

The ban was not on gambling itself, it's only on the sponsorship hence it should not affect people's desire to gamble, it could only affect the team owners desire to make more money as they will not anymore get funds from sponsorship that they can use to run the league, but I'm pretty sure they can still continue the business without sponsorship from gambling business.

[1715455483]

1715455483

[1715455483]

1715455483

[semobo]

Governments decide what things are allowed and not, so no one can oppose it unless the leader changes and who willing to lift the ban which was proposed in the earlier ruling period. But banning the sponsorship may not affect the gambling industry which only affects the revenue of the club.

The ban was not on gambling itself, it's only on the sponsorship hence it should not affect people's desire to gamble, it could only affect the team owners desire to make more money as they will not anymore get funds from sponsorship that they can use to run the league, but I'm pretty sure they can still continue the business without sponsorship from gambling business.

Lose of sponsors will affect the people for sure but as I said it is not going to affect the gambling owners in a great way and the market itself but people who are making money from that paid sponsor will be losing their life of getting little money than before. But it is not fair to ban the sponsorship because its from gambling when the gambling itself is legal in that place.

[stadus]

Governments decide what things are allowed and not, so no one can oppose it unless the leader changes and who willing to lift the ban which was proposed in the earlier ruling period. But banning the sponsorship may not affect the gambling industry which only affects the revenue of the club.

The ban was not on gambling itself, it's only on the sponsorship hence it should not affect people's desire to gamble, it could only affect the team owners desire to make more money as they will not anymore get funds from sponsorship that they can use to run the league, but I'm pretty sure they can still continue the business without sponsorship from gambling business.

Lose of sponsors will affect the people for sure but as I said it is not going to affect the gambling owners in a great way and the market itself but people who are making money from that paid sponsor will be losing their life of getting little money than before. But it is not fair to ban the sponsorship because its from gambling when the gambling itself is legal in that place.

Not everyone is gambling though, so that means it will not affect the life of majority of the fans.

Sports or league is created because they want to give entertainment and they don't have big sponsors at the start, as long as they get a lot of people watching the league, they can already make money from that and the league will survive, sponsorship is just an addition but if anything that would not help the lives of the people, that's something that government will study and investigate and they come up with the conclusion.

[Oilacris]

Governments decide what things are allowed and not, so no one can oppose it unless the leader changes and who willing to lift the ban which was proposed in the earlier ruling period. But banning the sponsorship may not affect the gambling industry which only affects the revenue of the club.

The ban was not on gambling itself, it's only on the sponsorship hence it should not affect people's desire to gamble, it could only affect the team owners desire to make more money as they will not anymore get funds from sponsorship that they can use to run the league, but I'm pretty sure they can still continue the business without sponsorship from gambling business.

Lose of sponsors will affect the people for sure but as I said it is not going to affect the gambling owners in a great way and the market itself but people who are making money from that paid sponsor will be losing their life of getting little money than before. But it is not fair to ban the sponsorship because its from gambling when the gambling itself is legal in that place.

Its just some needing a bit of share of those amounts that they do earn out of those sponsors and that would surely change. 

Its just non-sense on making out such decisions which it turns out to be a little bit sadistic or having no consideration even though it isnt really that much of a big amount or revenue
to get out of those sponsorship but still they arent letting it to push through.

If they do like some taxation or something then they can implement it rather than on banning it all over.

[KTChampions]

Such news is already beginning to annoy me greatly - the government has banned that, the government has forbidden it. I'm wondering how these ideas come about? Where did they come from? A parasite official sits and thinks - what should be further prohibited? Or is it a covert struggle of competitors and officials are used as a tool in it? I wish I knew the answers to the questions, but most of all I would like the government to meddle less in the private affairs of people and in private business.

[STT]

Total nonsense and overreach by government, what could be more relevant to sports sponsorship then the ability to bet on the outcome.  Its totally a natural thing to do and probably dates back tens of thousands of years.    Its not a positive to ban many things that some may not like personally you have to let people spend money they earn how they like or what kind of country are you in without freedom, gambling is not automatically anything of a negative thing.   The main thing to teach people is money management, obviously you never borrow money to put it on a hot bet sure thing you must only bet spare cash like any luxury.

[Saint-loup]

Such news is already beginning to annoy me greatly - the government has banned that, the government has forbidden it. I'm wondering how these ideas come about? Where did they come from? A parasite official sits and thinks - what should be further prohibited? Or is it a covert struggle of competitors and officials are used as a tool in it? I wish I knew the answers to the questions, but most of all I would like the government to meddle less in the private affairs of people and in private business.

That's a really sad news for Sportsbet.io which became the official betting partner of Arsenal FC only few months ago https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sportsbetio-becomes-official-betting-partner-for-arsenal-fc-301134804.html
They've certainly spent a big amount of money to get this official partnership, and if advertising them is now forbidden for Arsenal, this partnership worths nothing. Stake has been smarter to partner with UFC      

[STT]

Crypto is a global phenomena and unfortunately national governments are still trying to dominate their own populations in some way almost universal interference in some way that really helps no one.   The timing is completely wrong, a terrible recession and failure for sports because it involves so much crowd involvement and the first thing they can think of to do while an industry is still under fire is withdraw the support that sponsorship gives to any brand with its costs and viability to carry on.
   The biggest clubs will survive but the smaller teams wont , once again the little people in any economy suffer most.

[Kong Hey Pakboy]

Such news is already beginning to annoy me greatly - the government has banned that, the government has forbidden it. I'm wondering how these ideas come about? Where did they come from? A parasite official sits and thinks - what should be further prohibited? Or is it a covert struggle of competitors and officials are used as a tool in it? I wish I knew the answers to the questions, but most of all I would like the government to meddle less in the private affairs of people and in private business.

Well, it's not just the politician's fault that crypto is banned, the people who sponsored their campaigns AKA the big companies are the ones behind some legislations that they put in place. If you are annoyed of that then you should know by now that the only way for this people not get the seat of power is to vote wisely, be critical thinking so as not to choose the most corrupt in the bunch of candidates. If government were to meddle in the private businesses then a lot of exploitation might happen behind the scene.

[Japinat]

Such news is already beginning to annoy me greatly - the government has banned that, the government has forbidden it. I'm wondering how these ideas come about? Where did they come from? A parasite official sits and thinks - what should be further prohibited? Or is it a covert struggle of competitors and officials are used as a tool in it? I wish I knew the answers to the questions, but most of all I would like the government to meddle less in the private affairs of people and in private business.

That's a really sad new for Sportsbet.io which became the official betting partner of Arsenal FC only few months ago https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sportsbetio-becomes-official-betting-partner-for-arsenal-fc-301134804.html
They've certainly spent a big amount of money to get this official partnership, and if advertising them is now forbidden for Arsenal, this partnership worths nothing. Stake has been smarter to partner with UFC     

For sure they are because they even put that sponsorship in their website, so this investment is a loss for them and hopefully they were able to make money out of that sponsorship already as business is business. However, his government decision is final, there's nothing we can do to change it. 

[Saint-loup]

Such news is already beginning to annoy me greatly - the government has banned that, the government has forbidden it. I'm wondering how these ideas come about? Where did they come from? A parasite official sits and thinks - what should be further prohibited? Or is it a covert struggle of competitors and officials are used as a tool in it? I wish I knew the answers to the questions, but most of all I would like the government to meddle less in the private affairs of people and in private business.

That's a really sad new for Sportsbet.io which became the official betting partner of Arsenal FC only few months ago https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sportsbetio-becomes-official-betting-partner-for-arsenal-fc-301134804.html
They've certainly spent a big amount of money to get this official partnership, and if advertising them is now forbidden for Arsenal, this partnership worths nothing. Stake has been smarter to partner with UFC     

For sure they are because they even put that sponsorship in their website, so this investment is a loss for them and hopefully they were able to make money out of that sponsorship already as business is business. However, his government decision is final, there's nothing we can do to change it.

I disagree with you, if you are a british citizen you can make your voice heard by the UK government. There are many punters in Great Britains and many more soccer fans, if you are able to organize yourself you can act as a lobby on your government and your representatives.

[South Park]

The lack of foresight of most governments always surprises me, I understand that governments are supposed to try to protect their citizens but it comes to a point in which they become overprotective and not only this is disliked by the population but this produces laws that do not really bring a positive effect to the society but in fact produce negative outcomes, after all the gambling industry dedicates a great deal of resources to promote sports and without that support clubs will have problems keeping themselves in business.

To me, it is pretty simple. If gambling is legal in your country, allow gambling promotions and sponsors but if gambling is not legal then it is justified to ban the sponsors because it might lead to illegal gambling eventually.

The government doesn't stop their citizens from spending money on alcohol right so they should have no control to stop them from gambling either. If they are worried about the underage kids gambling then make the casinos and sportsbooks even more strict about their KYC or just cancel their license.

The article shared in the OP has one statement which is quite strange.  It says "Neil Banbury, UK General Manager at Kindred Group, says their figures show and in-depth research show that “high risk” customers make up four per cent of their business and their target is to reach zero levels." which means only 4% was there and a decision to ban gambling sponsors for such a small percentage wasn't justified.

It is that simple but governments go for regulation in a path which does not make sense, if they are so worried about that 4% then they could make a law that tells that if a player has been determined to be high risk then his account should be put on hold for an amount of time so he cannot keep losing money to the casino, something like this will be more effective at stopping addicted gamblers which ruin their lives than to disallow gambling sponsorship.

[electronicash]

The lack of foresight of most governments always surprises me, I understand that governments are supposed to try to protect their citizens but it comes to a point in which they become overprotective and not only this is disliked by the population but this produces laws that do not really bring a positive effect to the society but in fact produce negative outcomes, after all the gambling industry dedicates a great deal of resources to promote sports and without that support clubs will have problems keeping themselves in business.

To me, it is pretty simple. If gambling is legal in your country, allow gambling promotions and sponsors but if gambling is not legal then it is justified to ban the sponsors because it might lead to illegal gambling eventually.

The government doesn't stop their citizens from spending money on alcohol right so they should have no control to stop them from gambling either. If they are worried about the underage kids gambling then make the casinos and sportsbooks even more strict about their KYC or just cancel their license.

The article shared in the OP has one statement which is quite strange.  It says "Neil Banbury, UK General Manager at Kindred Group, says their figures show and in-depth research show that “high risk” customers make up four per cent of their business and their target is to reach zero levels." which means only 4% was there and a decision to ban gambling sponsors for such a small percentage wasn't justified.

It is that simple but governments go for regulation in a path which does not make sense, if they are so worried about that 4% then they could make a law that tells that if a player has been determined to be high risk then his account should be put on hold for an amount of time so he cannot keep losing money to the casino, something like this will be more effective at stopping addicted gamblers which ruin their lives than to disallow gambling sponsorship.

it's often seen as an encouragement to viewers whichever ads/logos appear on the shirts of the players. if the players are just wearing shirts with a logo of an energy drink on them, it will just be completely ignored by the government or any council that organized the sports events but if something like casino logos on shirts, it will eventually be seen as an encouragement to gamble. and whoever notices it will simply think it's a legitimate product. the government will make sure their citizens particularly kids will not engage in gambling activity and since they have no control over who watches the sports, they will assume kids to be watching.

[Kittygalore]

This is bad for betting sites that are planning to sponsor football clubs in the future, I mean what is wrong with that? I mean, its not like every kid who watches the game is going to be looking for those sponsorships in the first place, they care more about their favorite players than the stickers on their shirt. And its not the responsibility of the sponsors to make children not know about gambling, maybe to some extent yes but it is entirely on the parents that are looking out for their own child. This is bad because gambling sponsorships AFAIK are generous when they are the sponsor.

[South Park]

The lack of foresight of most governments always surprises me, I understand that governments are supposed to try to protect their citizens but it comes to a point in which they become overprotective and not only this is disliked by the population but this produces laws that do not really bring a positive effect to the society but in fact produce negative outcomes, after all the gambling industry dedicates a great deal of resources to promote sports and without that support clubs will have problems keeping themselves in business.

To me, it is pretty simple. If gambling is legal in your country, allow gambling promotions and sponsors but if gambling is not legal then it is justified to ban the sponsors because it might lead to illegal gambling eventually.

The government doesn't stop their citizens from spending money on alcohol right so they should have no control to stop them from gambling either. If they are worried about the underage kids gambling then make the casinos and sportsbooks even more strict about their KYC or just cancel their license.

The article shared in the OP has one statement which is quite strange.  It says "Neil Banbury, UK General Manager at Kindred Group, says their figures show and in-depth research show that “high risk” customers make up four per cent of their business and their target is to reach zero levels." which means only 4% was there and a decision to ban gambling sponsors for such a small percentage wasn't justified.

It is that simple but governments go for regulation in a path which does not make sense, if they are so worried about that 4% then they could make a law that tells that if a player has been determined to be high risk then his account should be put on hold for an amount of time so he cannot keep losing money to the casino, something like this will be more effective at stopping addicted gamblers which ruin their lives than to disallow gambling sponsorship.

it's often seen as an encouragement to viewers whichever ads/logos appear on the shirts of the players. if the players are just wearing shirts with a logo of an energy drink on them, it will just be completely ignored by the government or any council that organized the sports events but if something like casino logos on shirts, it will eventually be seen as an encouragement to gamble. and whoever notices it will simply think it's a legitimate product. the government will make sure their citizens particularly kids will not engage in gambling activity and since they have no control over who watches the sports, they will assume kids to be watching.

I do not find that argument to be too compelling, in theory fiat casinos should already be implementing know your customer policies so no kid that is below a certain age should be able to gamble, I still think that governments are going in the wrong direction with these kind of laws, it is precisely because of this reason that I have always thought that is a bad idea for governments to pass laws without a very heavy and intense study to see if the law is in fact going to prove effective against the problem they want to solve, because it is obvious that banning gambling sponsorships is not the correct way to go.

[fullhdpixel]

makes a lot of sense with this possibility...
create stricter rules with the aim of getting more money from the results of the negotiations. Well, it looks like the lawmakers will live as corrupt as long as possible.

When it comes ti sponsorship, its quite hard to control who will be able to get the priviledged who will get the sponsorship. Sometimes in may countrythe official or governments said to be there are the one who sponsor the events but in fact it can be came from the gambling activities, its hard to control whenmoneyinvolved and when some officials are covering them.

Both of you are right, especially with the internet available in many places, that sponsorship can continue without any regulators or government knows. They can make an agreement in below of hands without anyone know. Even without the internet, the corrupt official can handshake with the other people without the government know. But if the government seriously eradicates or reduces the corrupt, they can contact the club owner and the shirt sponsorships to discuss more the agreement.

This is true for every single sector, you may think that business doesn't work that way because you never seen huge companies but I have worked for 2 corporations that were global (one of them is shell oil company you may have heard of that) and all of them pay governments a ton of money to basically do whatever they want and nothing happens to them.

I have seen them fire people without pay, I have seen them pay 3-4 months later than usual and people maxing their credit cards and working until they are paid, there are many other unethical stuff going on as well just because they pay the government officials. We are talking about government officials doing something illegal but also companies that pay them do illegal things in return to cover that difference as well. Long story short we are in a world where bad people get together to hurt good people.

[pilosopotasyo]

The timing is bad the sporting world is suffering from revenue loss brought by the pandemic, and their alibi of addiction is not reasonable also, they should just issue a warning of its an addition to those who are involved or supporting the sporting industry, with or without sponsorship people gets addicted, people are addicted in so many things like watching movies and sports are the kind of addiction that is positive in nature.

[suzanne5223]

The timing is bad the sporting world is suffering from revenue loss brought by the pandemic, and their alibi of addiction is not reasonable also, they should just issue a warning of its an addition to those who are involved or supporting the sporting industry, with or without sponsorship people gets addicted, people are addicted in so many things like watching movies and sports are the kind of addiction that is positive in nature.

To be sincere, this is totally an unfair rule by the government all in the name of gambling addiction when 98% of all license gambling site for the gambling responsibility scheme which was created to help gambling addictions but it, not their fault because they are doing this because the system is operated in centralization and this the reason why Bitcoin decentralization is a blessing

[South Park]

The timing is bad the sporting world is suffering from revenue loss brought by the pandemic, and their alibi of addiction is not reasonable also, they should just issue a warning of its an addition to those who are involved or supporting the sporting industry, with or without sponsorship people gets addicted, people are addicted in so many things like watching movies and sports are the kind of addiction that is positive in nature.

Not only that but this supposed attempt at trying to protect the public is too little too late, anyone can gamble anywhere around the world as long as they have an Internet connection and a device capable of using it, people are not going to stop gambling just because they make gambling sponsorship illegal, so they are affecting sport clubs for a law that will have negligible effects at best, but then we are talking about politicians by far the worst public servant and the one that gets the most money.

[michellee]

makes a lot of sense with this possibility...
create stricter rules with the aim of getting more money from the results of the negotiations. Well, it looks like the lawmakers will live as corrupt as long as possible.

When it comes ti sponsorship, its quite hard to control who will be able to get the priviledged who will get the sponsorship. Sometimes in may countrythe official or governments said to be there are the one who sponsor the events but in fact it can be came from the gambling activities, its hard to control whenmoneyinvolved and when some officials are covering them.

Both of you are right, especially with the internet available in many places, that sponsorship can continue without any regulators or government knows. They can make an agreement in below of hands without anyone know. Even without the internet, the corrupt official can handshake with the other people without the government know. But if the government seriously eradicates or reduces the corrupt, they can contact the club owner and the shirt sponsorships to discuss more the agreement.

This is true for every single sector, you may think that business doesn't work that way because you never seen huge companies but I have worked for 2 corporations that were global (one of them is shell oil company you may have heard of that) and all of them pay governments a ton of money to basically do whatever they want and nothing happens to them.

I have seen them fire people without pay, I have seen them pay 3-4 months later than usual and people maxing their credit cards and working until they are paid, there are many other unethical stuff going on as well just because they pay the government officials. We are talking about government officials doing something illegal but also companies that pay them do illegal things in return to cover that difference as well. Long story short we are in a world where bad people get together to hurt good people.

Yes, I heard about the shell oil companies, but I never imagine if they did that with the government. No wonder if that company can enter many countries and play on the oil on that country. The government will protect their business and not let anyone disturb the agreement because that is related to a lot of money.

Fire people without pay do not make sense because they already work for their company. I think the owner needs to evaluate that because they can make a deal with the government and pay them with a lot of money, but they must think about their employee. Sooner or later, that case will be blow up, and there is only need a whistleblower to lift the case in the media. If the public can know that case, they will sue the clean officer or government to investigate the case. But that is happening in many countries and many businesses. Geez, the root of corruption is on many things.