Premier league bans gambling sponsors
footyheadlines.com
footyheadlines.com
Edit: also stadiums, but issues with building new stadiums are often caused by bureaucracy. Also the deals from bettong sites are not that great to be deciding factor of club can build a new stadium or not.
But the amount of money a random premier league team gets for their league is tenfold, so you still will struggle to compete.
This is one of the reasons there's a handful of non-premier league teams that have reached the UEFA champions league final in the last 10-20 years, while in the 80s you had random teams from all europe winning the Champion's Cup.
Concentration of wealth without NBA-inspired salary caps is self reinforcing and killing European footbal.
They absolutely hate how football is a business but they want the 100 million eurodollar striker!
I have a subscription for NA beers, my friends and I drink them when out and about, etc. We're young-ish Americans in New York, I suppose the news says we drink a lot less than previous generations.
Post pandemic, in my little bubble at least, I almost never see people drinking beer anymore.
Not true around me. They are pretty popular. And I stopped drinking them few years ago, when I realized I drink 5-6 a day and it is probably too much.
Seeing NA beers at a party that also has an open bar is neat.
Do they add more choices over time? If so, they sell well.
The major sites had anticipated the decision not to allow sponsorship by "real money" gambling sites and had registered their .net equivalents. Pokerstars.net, fulltiltpoker.net, etc.
.net stickers were printed in dozens of different colours, backgrounds, fonts, and players were instructed to take a .net sticker that most closely matched their branded clothing.
Of course, not everyone had their ducks in a row for the decision, and some of the domain names were still available. An enterprising entrepreneur registered Paddypowerpoker.net, and perhaps others, and turned it into a porn site.
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.
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.
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.
The 18th amendment didn't stop the sale of alcohol, but it greatly reduced those sales. It did lead to a black market, but it overall did succeed in the aims of the supporters even if it wasn't perfect. Of course the supporters were not as numerous as they thought they were and so it was rolled back.
And did the 13th Amendment prove that there was no racism in America? Does the 2nd Amendment prove that all Americans love guns?
The US is one of the most individualistic societies in the world. There is a significant amount of qualitative and quantitative research about this. Hofstede's cultural dimensions is probably the most popular "scoring" of this, but it's hardly the only reference.
There's a reason the idea of "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" originated in the US. If you've spent any time living abroad, especially in more collectivist societies (like those in Asia), you'd know how farcical it is to hold up the 18th Amendment as proof the US is not individualistic.
> 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.
If you want a stunning, quantitative example, here you go:
https://americanhealth.jhu.edu/news/guiding-principles-addre...
> Many Americans view poor individual choices/lack of discipline as the cause of opioid addiction:
> 78% of Americans believe people who are addicted to prescription opioids are, themselves, to blame for the problem.
> 72% believe that people addicted to prescription opioids lack self-discipline.
This is despite the fact that the opioid epidemic was driven by pharma companies employing aggressive marketing and false safety claims to get doctors to overprescribe painkillers.
https://alcoholstudies.rutgers.edu/the-four-sentence-letter-...
And yet large numbers of Americans (a significant majority according to the above) still blame opioid addiction on the individuals.
You can see the same general philosophy applied to issues like poverty and homelessness.
https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2025/most-us-a...
The passing of the 18th was done through a highly organized and motivated cross-party political bloc that would throw an election to punish anyone that did not align with the dry agenda. This stacked the representative government in their favor, even if it did not match actual sentiment in their state.
The repeal of the amendment however, was by vote and 73% of voters favored the repeal.
Speaking as an American only a tiny number are really the hard core individualists that OP is trying to reduce is to. The majority have inclinations that way but their beliefs are much more complex and cannot be reduced that far.
I'm an American who has lived abroad for many years and married into a less individualistic/more collectivist culture.
It's very easy to see how individualistic the US is comparatively speaking when you get the opportunity to step outside it.
The government of the state of New Jersey argued that the federal government should not be able to restrict states from allowing gambling, and the Supreme Court agreed, so now there are no limits since all the states compete with each other in a race to the bottom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_v._National_Collegiate_...
Even though this ruling would indicate that the federal government has no right to regulate things like cannabis consumption, 8 years later, the federal government still has the “right” to charge you with myriad felonies that should only be up to the states. So this is really all about money and power instead of principles.
Americas have had no problem with blue laws historically [1], which are laws about what can be done on Sunday largely connected to religious observations, as well as laws on "vice" and entire vice police [2] organizations.
It is no contradiction of individualism, and arguably a strong expression of it, to ensure that anything that can diminish individualism or directly attacks it also needs to be regulated. Heavy drugs, gambling, loot boxes, there's a whole variety of things that humanity has learned the hard way have a tendency to enslave those who indulge in them, and legally banning or constraining those things is perfectly in line with a philosophy of legal empowerment of the individual.
We also have a loooot of ways that people having problems with addictions can reach out for help. There is some truth to the idea that we have moved in the direction of being less willing to force that help on people, and some criticisms to be made there, but then, there were historically reasons for that shift as well that need to be incorporated into any holistic opinion of the situation.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law
[2]: https://thelegalguide.org/what-is-vice-police-what-is-their-...
The Protestant roots of the US are arguably one of the reasons American culture is so heavily focused on individual responsibility and the idea that people who are addicts are weak and undisciplined.
https://www.madinamerica.com/2020/07/history-addiction-arden...
What more is America supposed to do to remove this individual freedom from people? There is no bigger stick than the law.
Individualism doesn't require a society free from rules, with every person allowed to do whatever they want.
The Protestant and Calvinist roots of American culture emphasize individual moral agency and personal accountability. This makes it easy to view things like addiction as a personal moral failure or lack of discipline rather than a systemic or biological illness.
At the same time, these same Protestant and Calvinist roots supported a level of paternalism in the form of blue laws, temperance movements, vice squads, etc.
You are arguing that laws regulating "sin", which are intended to promote public virtue, are evidence that the US really isn't individualistic because they're (in principle) taking away your ability to do whatever you want, but what you're missing is that criminalization contributes to the widely-held belief among Americans that people who break those laws are weak, undisciplined people making bad choices.
Most Americans don't view "sin" laws as social welfare. They view them as moral boundaries, and when someone crosses them (say, into addiction), the default is to place the blame on the individual's own willpower. You chose to do drugs. You got addicted because you couldn't control yourself. You failed at recovery because you're undisciplined.
This is pervasive in the US and it even extends to issues like poverty. Three-quarters of Republicans and over half of independents believe that personal choices are a major reason people are poor.
https://thehill.com/business/economy/5495065-americans-perso...
Which reminds me of one of Kurt Vonnegut's most insightful observations about American culture:
> America is the wealthiest nation on Earth, but its people are mainly poor, and poor Americans are urged to hate themselves. To quote the American humorist Kin Hubbard, 'It ain’t no disgrace to be poor, but it might as well be.' It is in fact a crime for an American to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by the American poor. They mock themselves and glorify their betters. The meanest eating or drinking establishment, owned by a man who is himself poor, is very likely to have a sign on its wall asking this cruel question: 'if you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?' There will also be an American flag no larger than a child’s hand – glued to a lollipop stick and flying from the cash register.
> Americans, like human beings everywhere, believe many things that are obviously untrue. Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for any American to make money. They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say Napoleonic times. Many novelties have come from America. The most startling of these, a thing without precedent, is a mass of undignified poor. They do not love one another because they do not love themselves.
The Bud Bowl was discontinued becsause alcohol advertising is regulated.
World Poker Tour was sponsored by (poker site).net instead of .com because advertising a real money poker site was unacceptable. I haven't watched in a long time, I dunno what their ads are like now.
Restricting advertising is very American.
Except that it isn't: https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-indus...
And let's not talk about how the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement had the perverse effect of making states financially dependent on tobacco sales. The annual payouts fluctuate based on cigarette shipment volumes so states want tobacco sales to continue. If tobacco sales stop, the states stop getting checks.
Most of the revenue goes to general fund deficits, infrastructure development, etc., not tobacco prevention and healthcare. And a bunch of states even securitized their future settlement payout revenue so that they could get money immediately.
Your link includes bans on tv, transit, billboards, sponsorships, tobacco branding on non-tobacco items, etc.
Yes, there are a few venues where tobacco advertising is still permitted, but they can't sponsor a soccer team.
And? Tobacco companies spend more than $8 billion/year on marketing in the US. Advertising is not banned, and unless you think these billion-dollar companies (that states perversely depend on for revenue) are run by idiots, that money is producing ROI.
> Despite the front-of-shirt prohibition, gambling brands are still permitted to maintain a visual presence in the Premier League through shirt sleeve sponsorships or training kit branding, as demonstrated by Betano's new deals.
Even Americans can't fully deny they live in a society.
Or crypto. Which tweaks many of the same nerve endings.
Silly people still care about this crap.
People will never be 100% happy, all the time. And gambling (like many other companies) prey on people in the moments where they feel down.
maybe it's relatively cheap, but nobody does it because football fans isn't that of a target
Superbowl ads currently average around $8m USD (£5.93m).
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
Even though we moved Stake to the sleeves this year.
Yes, that will make it harder for them to connect to customers and _that is the point_.
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
Why? well The Uk has two main parties, one of which runs gambling as a way to raise funds...
The way that gambling companies target the poorest of society feels disgustingly predatory.
You can often tell the average income of an area based on how many betfreds and paddy powers there are on the high street.
Betting shops have begun to disappear not just because of moving online, but because regulations have finally limited the pernicious power of the fixed-odds betting terminal (FOBT). They were so disgustingly, vampirically profitable they were reason alone to open betting shops in small premises; two members of staff and four FOBTs and any small shop rakes it in. Now they finally do not make enough profit for that to be worth it.
Oddly, betting shops aren't in any planning categories and AFAIK never have been, so whenever you see one, it was specifically and individually approved. Which should tell you a thing or two about the uncomfortable overlap between small-scale commercial landlords and councillors.
Hah, like in my town, where they are so in bed with each other their families and kids go on vacation together.
And then they approve waterfront developments on the side of hills that failed ecological testing and failed traffic assessments (in this case that the local roads could not support the traffic load -and- because of the topology there was no room to increase traffic capacity and the closest you'd be able to do would be eminent-domain'ing ~200 homes to widen a road out to an arterial, for the benefit of the 450 new units. I'd better not give them ideas...)
And the local newspaper is so in bed with both that when this approval was announced, the article in the paper mentioned all the opponents by name, got a tepid comment from the town, but couldn't bring themselves once to name the developer (You can find out who it is of course, but the newspaper won't help you, even while publishing their artists renderings).
And
I suspect more influential is gambling industry lobbying and sinecures.
UK political donations big enough to win a campaign used to be quite hard to come by. The big single donor money was in alcohol, tobacco or gambling.
(The big single-donor money now, clearly, is crypto, though the tories take vape industry money.)
Alcohol industry giants like Diageo tend to be politically neutral because they know that really any government could change the law on health grounds. The tobacco giants, at the time, wanted to hold back inevitable regulatory change and backed the Tories — Maggie Thatcher had been a Philip Morris consultant.
That left Blair talking to wealthy donors from the gambling industry pushing for widespread deregulation of a modernised, increasingly digital industry. He took the cash where the Tories would not.
Successive governments have been trying to claw back from what that decision (combined with a subsequent gambling taxation change) caused. Long term, it has been worse for the UK than any other single Blair policy and it has fully undone many community and health policies he introduced because it allowed the creation of the Fixed Odds Betting Terminal (FOBT), for example: a development so rapacious and predatory it makes drug dealers look like amateurs.
It has been very difficult to undo because the deregulation was so massive in scope, and as tobacco tax revenue collapsed after Blair's broadly successful tobacco regulation, the government became increasingly dependent on enormous gambling tax revenue to replace it (including, specifically, FOBT tax revenue).
So as much as I would like to blame the Tory government that followed for not doing enough — and they did not do enough, even when presented with clear evidence of FOBT harm — their hands were mostly tied.
But we would (IMO correctly) observe that while raffles and lotteries are both technically a form of gambling, a raffle is not really a lottery in the conventional sense; it tends to form a more specific social function because there's usually an array of cheap, fun, often slightly absurd prizes from local donors, the prize is not money or a truly high-value thing, they aren't rolling, weekly events, they tend to be all-ages etc.
It largely emerges out of British church fête culture. British churches are usually poor, not rich, so a raffle was a way for the vicar to gently shake down local businesses for a set of cheap prizes in return for some gentle advertising and showing off, and a way to get more local small donors and word-of-mouth because you're gently socially shamed into taking and distributing a book of raffle tickets. School communities do it — for much the same reason — just substitute head teacher for vicar.
Also the raffle is at the end of the event, so people stay to the end (when Britishness would otherwise see us leaving early)!
You have to understand that the naffness of a raffle is very distinct from the brassy, brash idea of a lottery. People groan at the naffness and then take part anyway because it's harmless. Raffles are crap, but they are community crap.
(Like the old-fashioned "Beetle drive" fundraiser which is essentially a form of bingo.)
You can't really draw a line from the typical social raffle to lottery participation or gambling. Lotteries, raffles, bingo halls, sports betting, online game gambling, all look superficially similar but they aren't (despite the gambling companies' efforts) really the same constituencies.
Apart from that, I don't think we're any different to the USA or European countries; we got our National Lottery tradition from the USA and some of our smaller prize lottery companies have been European.
New Zealand also has the same sort of church/community raffle culture, I gather; very much an export.
The Conservatives did start the National Lottery in the 90s and it definitely tried to hang off the "good causes" thing, but as I detailed in another overlong comment, much of the UK's more disturbing gambling trends were caused by subsequent deregulations enacted by the subsequent (New) Labour government.
For us Eurovision is simply not something that registers as a serious thing; the years where it has been non-cheesy are few and far between. As a nation we find much (non-scandinavian, at least) Europop quite cheesy, with only a couple of exceptions.
Winning it earnestly is not something that happens when we try, and perhaps will not ever happen again. Europeans simply don't like us enough!
The last time we won was a rare moment in our recent history; literally two days before, a Europhile left-wing government led by a prime minister who spoke French fluently and counted a legendary flamenco guitarist as his friend had just won a landslide, and we entered a band that had already been famous with a pretty basic, stadium rock song. So it was a combination of happenstance and European proxy politics again.
So we enter fun things that better express how we feel about it. Europop often comes across as cheesy but the LMNC entry was out of love for it, not loathing.
We would, TBH, rather win it for something fun like this than win it for something serious. And I think Ireland shows you what happens if you train the big guns on the thing; repeatedly winning Eurovision nearly bankrupted RTÉ, as far as I recall.
FWIW my feeling is that we should quit Eurovision (if the EBU do not end it). Its time has past and it will not survive its current form.
Bookies are bad they find ways to avoid paying all the times, exchanges are good
And the act itself , meaning wagering on athletes competing is almost as old as sex and prostitution and all the hopes to regulate it into submission are just as idiotic.
What a joke.
Shades of grey, but I'll take the gambling companies any day of the week.