New Government Rules Mean No More Gambling Sponsorship

[goaldigger]

Gambling site believed the sports as their huge market place and if they was able to promote their services through the team, they can get more money and maybe this is why some government are banning the gambling companies to get the partnership with the sports club. I don't know the main reason of that government but I think this decision can affect both the team and the gambling site, either way they have to follow the law or at least appeal to their own government.

[panganib999]

The consequence of this government regulation is a huge impact on club revenues. When club finances are disrupted, I will doubt very much how these teams will be competitive enough to finish the season. Are there other factors that led the government to make this decision apart from blaming addiction as the main factor ?
These rules will apply in the UK, and I believe there is a lot of discussion going forward that might lead the government to change the rules or at least tighten them for obvious reasons.

I also think this kind of rules made by gambling issues doubtful helping because we all know how goverment handles things and they just look on every situation in general. Reasons are differently approach yet most of the goverment person aren't aware of the obvious reason. No more gambling sponsorship may lead to the idea of revenues of clubs and such. Sports betting might reduce and result to low cases of people addiction. In other hand, in digital money, I think this kind of rule will not have a huge impact because we all know digital money stands its own and value depends on the market. Only fiat money will likely to affect and those sponsor companies and other games betting.

[Yogee]

They grant license for gambling platforms to operate but they don't allow them to advertise on the most popular sports and arguably the most popular league. It's as if they're saying "we grant you permission to offer sports betting but we don't want you to tell people about it". Affected teams who can't find immediate sponsors will be weakened by this rule and the league could be less competitive as a consequence.

[jossiel]

It should already be out of their sight if it's about sponsorships. They know that clubs are also needing to have sponsors unless they can support and give what those sponsors can give to the clubs.

But clubs can't do with that if the government say so. As long as they can have some settlements for that and have remedy just for the sake of both parties.

[Pmalek]

This is nothing new and similar proposals were made 1-2 years ago. Several members of the British Parliament spoke out against betting companies being advertised on football shirts at the beginning of last year > https://theathletic.com/1608071/2020/02/14/government-betting-ban-shirt-gambling-sponsorship/.

Some European countries already have similar bans. I remember seeing fixtures where the teams who advertise sportsbooks play matches with a big black rectangular patch over the betting name and logo in European fixtures.   

[just_Alice]

I don't get it, why would they impose this kind of restriction? Didn't the government profit from the taxation? And if they ban sponsorship, who will the football industry rely on? It's not like alcohol sponsorship is any better... Sports brands will be the only ones left, I believe. On the other hand, it's good that the government is worried about the nation and can see possible consequences of continuous gambling advertising, but with such a crackdown the government should at least offer some alternatives and help out in the future.

[ethereumhunter]

The government can do everything they want, but they can not blame the shirt sponsorship with gambling firms. It is a matter of their people not playing gambling, and I think the responsibility will be on their people. But maybe the shirt sponsorship can make a difference with the shirt, and maybe they do not have to use sponsorship with gambling firms. If the ban applies to them, they will lose an income from the club owners. So maybe they can ask the government how to solve the problem.

[slaman29]

That's not good news at all, I mean I understand all the problems and the need to tax and all that but surely they have to understand now that the situation with sponsorships is not healthy. There's no money anywhere and in some cases sports has been saved my last minute sponsorships from gambling companies. You shouldn't just make drastic decisions like this.

[Hydrogen]

I’m disappointed with the government as this is not the best time to enforce this:

Football has been warned it faces a “significant impact” with the Government ready to impose a major crackdown on betting sponsorship.

Ministers could impose a complete ban on shirt sponsorship with gambling firms as part of their review with teams from the top two divisions making around £110m-a-year from the tie-ups.

What are your thoughts on this do you agree with the government or you’re against this proposal, and how do you think that the club owners will react knowing that they’ll have to suffer more financial losses if this is implemented.

Some say government exists to help and serve the people.

If those who say that, watched the news, they might sometimes notice governments killing jobs. Giving people fewer options and opportunities in life.



Former President of the united states, Ronald Reagan, summarized this observation many years ago.

In theory, governments work for the good of the people. In reality, governments more commonly work for special interests. Big corporations and the super rich. Which makes things difficult for the 99.9% of the population who do not fall under that income bracket.

[South Park]

I’m disappointed with the government as this is not the best time to enforce this:

Football has been warned it faces a “significant impact” with the Government ready to impose a major crackdown on betting sponsorship.

Ministers could impose a complete ban on shirt sponsorship with gambling firms as part of their review with teams from the top two divisions making around £110m-a-year from the tie-ups.

What are your thoughts on this do you agree with the government or you’re against this proposal, and how do you think that the club owners will react knowing that they’ll have to suffer more financial losses if this is implemented.

Source:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/football-clubs-warned-betting-sponsorship-23457892.amp

I do not agree with this, this could make some kind of sense in the 80’s if what they were trying to do was to protect children and other people from gambling, but now you can gamble from the comfort of your own home and if people want to gamble they will regardless of whether casinos announce themselves on the shirts of soccer players, so with this measure the only thing they are doing is affecting soccer clubs at the same time many of them are facing financial challenges due to the pandemic.

[dimonstration]

They grant license for gambling platforms to operate but they don't allow them to advertise on the most popular sports and arguably the most popular league. It's as if they're saying "we grant you permission to offer sports betting but we don't want you to tell people about it". Affected teams who can't find immediate sponsors will be weakened by this rule and the league could be less competitive as a consequence.

This will result in a big loss in the companies as they will require to do extra more effort to gain visitors, that might still have business but they are no option to market it since there’s no platform to do it, hopefully it just limited in some platform or areas and not totally means no Ads sponsorship in anywhere.

[ReiMomo]

They grant license for gambling platforms to operate but they don't allow them to advertise on the most popular sports and arguably the most popular league. It's as if they're saying "we grant you permission to offer sports betting but we don't want you to tell people about it". Affected teams who can't find immediate sponsors will be weakened by this rule and the league could be less competitive as a consequence.

This will result in a big loss in the companies as they will require to do extra more effort to gain visitors, that might still have business but they are no option to market it since there’s no platform to do it, hopefully it just limited in some platform or areas and not totally means no Ads sponsorship in anywhere.

Not only the companies, but it is also a big loss by the government because it will I guess break down the revenue that came from the gambling industry. Believe me or not, there are some countries that the gambling revenue is a big contributor to society, most especially when there is a pandemic and most countries are facing the same problem, the financial one.

I don't know if which country it is but surely it is a bad move for them.

[2double0]

Obviously against the government for this because they are just taking away almost everything out of the hands of their citizens and this is not the case here alone but I have been hearing such news daily from different countries. I think it is time to show these governments that they are elected by us not to make us their slaves and rule us like they are kings. Why not open a petition against them and let everyone from us who are against it, sign it and give a shout to this government?

[Ziskinberg]

Why not open a petition against them and let everyone from us who are against it, sign it and give a shout to this government?

The concern here is just basically on the team owners or the league as a whole, they should file a petition as they are the ones who are affected here. As a fan, we can watch games as long as there are players playing in the field. The government certainly have reviewed all of these and since the government's function is to serve the majority of people, I think the decision is justified to be the right decision.

Maybe it's time for the league to invest more capital to pay for the the "expenses" in running it, and just look for other kind of sponsorship.  

[Hippocrypto]

I’m disappointed with the government as this is not the best time to enforce this:

Football has been warned it faces a “significant impact” with the Government ready to impose a major crackdown on betting sponsorship.

Ministers could impose a complete ban on shirt sponsorship with gambling firms as part of their review with teams from the top two divisions making around £110m-a-year from the tie-ups.

What are your thoughts on this do you agree with the government or you’re against this proposal, and how do you think that the club owners will react knowing that they’ll have to suffer more financial losses if this is implemented.

Source:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/football-clubs-warned-betting-sponsorship-23457892.amp

This is really a serious thing for several owners, because gambling sponsors relied on their potential profit for this sponsorship due to promotions. If ever their names wouldn't be advertised through promoting their brandings, I think more losses will tend to happen. Once implementation be initiated, unfortunately business with virtual gambling might have cause collapse on their establishment yet we don't know yet the outcomes but I'm sure operators would cry out in pain.

[2double0]

Why not open a petition against them and let everyone from us who are against it, sign it and give a shout to this government?

The concern here is just basically on the team owners or the league as a whole, they should file a petition as they are the ones who are affected here. As a fan, we can watch games as long as there are players playing in the field. The government certainly have reviewed all of these and since the government's function is to serve the majority of people, I think the decision is justified to be the right decision.

Maybe it's time for the league to invest more capital to pay for the the "expenses" in running it, and just look for other kind of sponsorship.  

There are many sports which come under the 'illegal' category but they are still allowed in various countries while banned in some major countries. Same way, we are watching the game and the players, but these firms only have those banners, hoardings and players' clothes as their way to advertise their gambling business. And it is pathetic to think and understand that why are the governments interfering in the advertisement sector of these companies?

[shoreno]

ouch this is a really bad news for the gambling owners that were supposed to be planning for a partnership on football but what about the gambling companies that are already succesfully partnered to a football team before , are they going to allow that or they will also remove the partnership ? hope they wont remove it but it will also look unfair to other gambling companies that are planning for a partnership

 i dont know if what is that significant impact they are saying and why they impose such rule . they should clear it out because no one will agree with this

[goinmerry]

Not the best time? It won't be planned in the first place if there's no significance to do it.

Valid pointers:

“The vast majority of brands sponsoring the Premier League don’t have a UK business, have no interest in UK consumers.

“That has created the toxicity around the debate when actually what we should be talking about is a high bar to get involved and then let’s talk about the good work we can do together.

And there are many more.

And don't worry at all. I don't see it can bring negative impacts on a whole.

[Darker45]

My couple of Sats.

1. “The vast majority of brands sponsoring the Premier League don’t have a UK business, have no interest in UK consumers." So why confront this thing as if it is a big deal? Why don't they just impose a higher tax on sponsorship and let it be?

Now, if they prefer that sponsorships should be coming from local companies or at least from those businesses which are also operating in the UK, then why don't they implement it rather than a complete ban? The latter is obviously throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

2. If the regulating agencies are concerned about gambling addiction and abuse, I don't think a clamp down on football shirt sponsorship will address the issue. If it is considered a response, it seems it is an irrelevant response. Gambling abuse and addiction could be addressed more directly and in ways which are not damaging to the income streams of football clubs.

Putting up, or if there is already, reducing the gambling cap per person may help, limiting gamblers to a few hours, allowing family members to ban someone from the family from gambling, and so on.

[Shasha80]

In a pandemic situation like now, almost all teams experience a financial crisis,  so the government prohibits gambling from providing sponsorship is
not the right time. Because it is not easy to find sponsors in the current situation, and in a pandemic situation like now, gambling platforms, including
those that have increased income.

With many traditional casinos still closed because they prevent the spread of COVID-19, so there must be lots of gambling platforms that want to
sponsor several teams. Then for the team it can also be very helpful, because it has been a long time since they can't get income from ticket sales.
So I don't agree with the government's policy by banning gambling from sponsoring teams.