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.
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.
it's a cat and mouse thing, but the truth is that there is no will to actually do it, because the party who championed this has since moved to other things, and clubs _want_ the money from betting companies because they're struggling to keep up with other leagues (especially since those sponsors _are_ allowed in other leagues).
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.
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.
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.
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_.
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.
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.
Perhaps they should ban news sites that cover gambling.
it's a cat and mouse thing, but the truth is that there is no will to actually do it, because the party who championed this has since moved to other things, and clubs _want_ the money from betting companies because they're struggling to keep up with other leagues (especially since those sponsors _are_ allowed in other leagues).
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.
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.
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.
100% agree, it's a great step, the title is just misleading.
Finally! There is no worse scourge on society. Bookies are parasites.
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.
True enough, but they become Patrons of the Arts in a sense.
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_.
I am surprised.
Why? well The Uk has two main parties, one of which runs gambling as a way to raise funds...
https://lottery.conservatives.com
Everton to be deducted 9 points.
Even though we moved Stake to the sleeves this year.
unclear if the article says that prediction markets are gambling, otherwise this is a massive loophole
they literally did not though? just cant have it front and center on the shirt. its like a slow march towards a higher moral ground
Unfortunately this means crypto will just take over completely.
Crypto is less worse than gambling and sports bets.
> 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