New Government Rules Mean No More Gambling Sponsorship

[Ucy]

It's a good idea If it's a sponsorship by companies that encourage Gambling (or unsafe/irresponsible betting).
Responsible/safe betting companies/business could be accepted.
By the way, I wonder what companies/businesses they wish to start accepting. If they choose very safe companies/businesses, I think the betting companies could greatly improve their standards in order to qualify, by making sure they provide  very useful and safe products/services to their betting customers.

if the gambling  is unsafe or irresponsible it will be risky if for the footbal team to accept it because they will have a bad reputation if the fans and the whole world sees it  but legit and responsible gambling cant stand a chance to be accepted no matter how much adjustment and improvements they are going to do because the government already declare the ban but they can hope that the mind of the government will change in the future .

Is it possible to have "legit and responsible gambling"? Can you say "Gamble with what you can afford to lose/risk" ? This doesn't make much sense because gambling is associated with taking big risk...which is kind of irresponsible considering that the risk could be reduce to the bare minimum for customers, and to qualify it as Safe Betting.

On a betting risk percentage scale(for inexperienced bettor), I would call 40% to 100%= Very risky bet (or gambling),  10% to 40% = Risky Bets, While 5% down is safe bets.

Ofcourse, I'm aware that online dictionaries define certain Betting /Prediction Market as gambling but that doesn't make sense when thesame word is used for big risk while couple of the predictions market may be practicing safe and useful bets. They have to be clear what gambling really is and shouldn't be linked to taking big/dangerous risks.

[Distinctin]

Team owners and the gambling advertisers who will be affected don't have any options since
it's the government who's implementing the rules.

Definitely, they should adjust here and just comply with the law, otherwise they will suffer from the penalty.
When government issued this kind of law, there's always a sanction as it's an act of anti gambling or let's say to help people minimize from gambling.

This has an impact on the revenue of the league itself but on the other hand, it will help people learn how to minimize gambling or even avoid it.

[Fundamentals Of]

Team owners and the gambling advertisers who will be affected don't have any options since
it's the government who's implementing the rules.

This has an impact on the revenue of the league itself but on the other hand, it will help people learn how to minimize gambling or even avoid it.

I don't understand where you are coming from. It does not mean that gamblers will minimize their gambling or avoid it merely because gambling sites are not anymore promoted through football shirts. If you were in their shoes, are you going to minimize your gambling activities or stop it altogether because your government is clamping down on gambling sponsorship? I don't think so. So there is no connection whatsoever.

[Yogee]

Team owners and the gambling advertisers who will be affected don't have any options since
it's the government who's implementing the rules.

This has an impact on the revenue of the league itself but on the other hand, it will help people learn how to minimize gambling or even avoid it.

I don't understand where you are coming from. It does not mean that gamblers will minimize their gambling or avoid it merely because gambling sites are not anymore promoted through football shirts. If you were in their shoes, are you going to minimize your gambling activities or stop it altogether because your government is clamping down on gambling sponsorship? I don't think so. So there is no connection whatsoever.

Hehehe once a gambler always a gambler. You can change from moderate to heavy gambler and vice versa. You'll always gamble in sports betting, in casinos, or just with peers.


The target should have been sports fanatics who are still not exposed to any form of betting but it's not fair to ban only sponsorships. They should also prohibit media from talking about gambling if the Government is really serious.

[Fundamentals Of]

Team owners and the gambling advertisers who will be affected don't have any options since
it's the government who's implementing the rules.

This has an impact on the revenue of the league itself but on the other hand, it will help people learn how to minimize gambling or even avoid it.

I don't understand where you are coming from. It does not mean that gamblers will minimize their gambling or avoid it merely because gambling sites are not anymore promoted through football shirts. If you were in their shoes, are you going to minimize your gambling activities or stop it altogether because your government is clamping down on gambling sponsorship? I don't think so. So there is no connection whatsoever.

Hehehe once a gambler always a gambler. You can change from moderate to heavy gambler and vice versa. You'll always gamble in sports betting, in casinos, or just with peers.

Or you could actually stop gambling once and for all but I really doubt that the reason could be as shallow as the ban on shirt sponsorship. It does not really makes sense to me. I could stop gambling totally, for example, if I am having a lot of responsibilities that I cannot anymore spare some time for it, or if I am really having a lot of expenses that I cannot anymore afford to spend on gambling, etc. Those are real reasons to quit.

The target should have been sports fanatics who are still not exposed to any form of betting but it's not fair to ban only sponsorships. They should also prohibit media from talking about gambling if the Government is really serious.

If the government is really serious on curbing gambling then they should just ban gambling once and for all.

[South Park]

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.  

But it still does not make sense, gambling as a sponsor of many sports makes a lot of sense as people like to make sports bets already and they are trying to capture that part of the market, what else can announce there that has the same amount of money and the same kind of impact? The only other industry that comes to mind is the alcohol industry and most likely they will try to ban that as well, quite honestly this is just an attempt to over-regulate so they not seem like a bunch of useless guys that for the most part that is what they actually are.

[hahay]

The policy should not be implemented because after all, when gambling sponsors come in a country where gambling is legal then I don't think it's wrong that they keep working together. Maybe this problem occurs because gambling is not completely legal in all countries, so the pros and cons keep going up and this is the result. Anyway, resistance has to be done because sponsorship is important, when a lot of money has been spent there is nothing wrong with placing gambling sponsors, because they are also tax compliant.

[Insanerman]

Not the best time for this kind of news, many sports rely on sponsorship it's added revenue and good advertising for a gambling site they thrive on that and this has proven to works and benefits both industry, they should oppose this and try to appeal this, it's been handed without consultation, which should be the case if they want to implement new rules, they did not see it's bad impact for both parties.

Indeed. Other people thinks that sponsorship is just a little thing to run some sports, yet little do they know that it is the main fund source of many teams plus some income from gambling that uses the sports games as well. This would really be bad once implemented as it might decrease the chance of certain teams to play more as they wouldn't have any more profit with it, and would have also impact drastically the gambling space.

[vintages]

What they are trying to convey IMO is that, you can still enjoy the gambling without betting, these two does not necessarily come together.

Are they not almost related? IMO, I feel gambling is indirectly betting because they both consist risk. Also, anyone who is gambling has greater chances of betting.
That being said, I feel the reason why the government wants to cut down on betting sponsorship is that, those behind it make a lot of money on the expenses of others and also manipulates game. Though, I feel the better way to have gone is for the government to regulate or limit certain things in it, instead of completely stopping it. 

[Reatim]

Sorry but i missing something here , What would trigger a government cancelling
 the sponsorship from Gambling businesses ?

Each sports has sponsors so why need to be banned the gambling business?

Wait that is a very harsh ordinance, especially for the gambling industry who of course will rely on advertisements to gather customers. Even a bit unfair considering the fact that they still will be allowing major brands and companies who actively abuse people in their production factories and floors rather than a few rather than a few honest to living people who opted to set a gambling den.

What i was looking is the main reason for this because this has been in the system for how
 long and all of a sudden will be implemented this time.

[Janation]

*banning the gambling industry from sponsoring is a bad move...
The gambling industry has made many contributions to the sports industry such as football, if the government prohibits this, it is very worrying that the sports clubs will less funds and cause a loss of motivation. reduce addict gamblers is not something that can be solved this way.

A huge contribution, to be honest.

National Football League or NFL's revenues came largely because of the contribution of gambling sponsorship. With this new government rule, that would really make a huge difference and will affect the league and the players as well. It is true that gambling addiction is a problem in these countries but I think banning these sponsorships won't help or be a solution to it.

[Wexnident]

Sorry but i missing something here , What would trigger a government cancelling
 the sponsorship from Gambling businesses ?

Each sports has sponsors so why need to be banned the gambling business?

From what I understood, it was due to the influence of gambling addicts being here and there.

But there are growing concerns about addictions and football’s relationship with the multi-billion pound gambling industry in terms of advertising and commercial deals

(Quoted from article of OP)

From what I understood from this sentence anw. It's kinda stupid to fault the gambling industry here tbh, it clearly shows that they're pretty inefficient at managing gamblers after all, industries are only there to cater to customer needs, and heck, they even have different sort of walls to prevent people from getting addicted or illegally playing. The fact that there are still people who are addicted to gambling shows that it's a personal issue already.

[Janation]

Sorry but i missing something here , What would trigger a government cancelling
 the sponsorship from Gambling businesses ?

Each sports has sponsors so why need to be banned the gambling business?

From what I understood, it was due to the influence of gambling addicts being here and there.

But there are growing concerns about addictions and football’s relationship with the multi-billion pound gambling industry in terms of advertising and commercial deals

(Quoted from article of OP)

From what I understood from this sentence anw. It's kinda stupid to fault the gambling industry here tbh, it clearly shows that they're pretty inefficient at managing gamblers after all, industries are only there to cater to customer needs, and heck, they even have different sort of walls to prevent people from getting addicted or illegally playing. The fact that there are still people who are addicted to gambling shows that it's a personal issue already.

That is so true.

Why would we even blame these gambling sponsorships if it is already a personal problem by the gamblers themselves. This rule won't affect the gamblers at all, the players and the league are the ones that will be affected by this. They should focus more on how they will lessen the gamblers and not affect the league itself.

[dothebeats]

In an industry severely hit by the pandemic, removing yet another lifeline for teams and clubs won't do any good. This will just further the problems of teams. As for us bettors or just spectators, this means that there will be less special events on gambling platforms and less fan interaction since the teams no longer have the means to do so. This is just unfair and unfortunate given how severe the impact of the pandemic to the sports and gambling industry.

[mirakal]

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

I'm not, sorry I am on the opposite.

My belief is that government are here to serve the people, the interest of its people and if they are seeing that people are going more into gambling, then that should ring an alarm to them, this action by them is for the benefit of majority, they would not do it if it will affect their economy as they know how to handle it. So what if this rule does not favor a certain sport, I'm sure they will still continue and find another way.

[Ucy]

What they are trying to convey IMO is that, you can still enjoy the gambling without betting, these two does not necessarily come together.

Are they not almost related? IMO, I feel gambling is indirectly betting because they both consist risk. Also, anyone who is gambling has greater chances of betting.
That being said, I feel the reason why the government wants to cut down on betting sponsorship is that, those behind it make a lot of money on the expenses of others and also manipulates game. Though, I feel the better way to have gone is for the government to regulate or limit certain things in it, instead of completely stopping it.  

They are not, because you could Bet without Gambling on Stock price for example. Gambling in Betting/Prediction Market is a different thing entirely... it's simply taking big betting risk. This is part of the reasons I think the regulator may be doing the right thing if their true intention is to prevent the advertisement of things that encourage big risk or risk atall. The betting should  really address the problem and hope they are allowed to advertise again.

[Saisher]

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.

I also don't agree but it seems government still wants to control and fully regulate the sports betting, our government are also imposing sanctions forgetting that we are in a pandemic and such sanctions and new regulations will harm of the sports betting, which is struggling to make a profit in this pandemic, sports betting are also tax payers and they are paying high taxes so they should be heard if they file a protest.

[Questat]

What they are trying to convey IMO is that, you can still enjoy the gambling without betting, these two does not necessarily come together.

Are they not almost related? IMO, I feel gambling is indirectly betting because they both consist risk. Also, anyone who is gambling has greater chances of betting.
That being said, I feel the reason why the government wants to cut down on betting sponsorship is that, those behind it make a lot of money on the expenses of others and also manipulates game. Though, I feel the better way to have gone is for the government to regulate or limit certain things in it, instead of completely stopping it.  

They are not, because you could Bet without Gambling on Stock price for example. Gambling in Betting/Prediction Market is a different thing entirely... it's simply taking big betting risk. This is part of the reasons I think the regulator may be doing the right thing if their true intention is to prevent the advertisement of things that encourage big risk or risk atall. The betting should  really address the problem and hope they are allowed to advertise again.

Betting is gambling, people will gamble if they know there's a way to gamble, government just minimize the exposure so people will not be curious. This is even better compared in other countries where gambling was really ban, hence, no gambling means no sponsorship and not tax revenue for the government.

[Noctis Connor]

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

They're having a problem with the tax my cousin told me about this the government wants also control about the sports betting that's why they warned them imagine they getting those money from sports just to fixed their economy from losing that much, Government should protect its people not getting milk from people how can people enjoy more when this is all about government handling? Or maybe they want people not to get addicted that much into gambling to control people? because its all about emotion etc.

[fiulpro]

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

See I do think that the reason why government did was because :
They wanted to stop the impact of gambling which usually is due to the big celebs endorsing it which makes their fan following a little biased towards the whole thing.
They might be trying to tackle the match fixing too which is far too prevent than we might think.
But what they do not realize is :
People would do it even if they had any sponsors. They should not ban something but rather regulate it, regulate it in a good way so that it can go towards a positive point and get a good direction.

Banning something would not only be harmful for that particular sport but it would also be harmful for that particular government, they might be reducing their tax income too.

Right now I do think they might continue to monitor any significant improvement or determent then take a decision again in the future.