Gambling with lives

T

tindalls_hairband

First Team
I'm deeply troubled that we're partnering with a gambling company once more.

Gambling-related harm impacts millions of people either directly or indirectly. Research indicates there are between 250 and 650 gambling-related suicides in the UK each year, with football often acting as the hook that draws gamblers in.

As a club that prides itself on its community links, I think it has a responsibility to the 1.4 million people currently addicted to gambling in the UK, who are up to 15 times more likely to take their own lives than the general population.

The club’s motto is ‘Together, Anything Is Possible’. Clubs like Bolton Wanderers and Luton Town have shown that decency and social responsibility are possible by calling for an end to gambling sponsorship in professional football.

It’s disappointing that Jeff Mostyn can’t do the same.

If you agree, there's a petition here - AFC Bournemouth must cancel its sponsorship deal with gambling company, Dafabet. | 38 Degrees

I've had plenty of conversations with people who disagree, who say it's incumbent on the club to raise as much money as possible. You're welcome to that opinion, one that the club clearly shares. I think we're better than that.
 
Couldn’t agree more. I think Kris Temple said that gambling companies pay twice the going rate of other companies. DJ put some figures up showing that shirt sponsorship deals at our end of the wealth spectrum are between £1.5 and £5 million.

So we are choosing to trouser, say, £1.5 million extra income from a morally awful industry. I think that is wrong, albeit probably inevitable. The sooner gambling advertising and sponsorship goes the way of tobacco the better.
 
Betting is legal, smoking is legal, alcohol is legal....I personally don't have a problem with the advertising of any of those products......I bet every now and then ,I don't smoke and drink in moderation .....anyone who is weak willed enough to get addicted to any of these won't stop because it's not advertised on a football shirt.
 
As someone who doesn’t gamble and has never seen the point, I know I am vastly unqualified to comment.

I’m no more likely to gamble with the sponsor on the front of the shirt as I was last season when it was on both sleeves and the back.

Neither was I ever going to seek financial advice due to the MSP Capital sponsorship, nor was I likely to buy a new fire place when we were sponsored by Focal Point.

Clearly sponsorship and advertising does work, otherwise these companies wouldn’t do it.

But isn’t such a campaign aimed at the wrong people? The football club is merely trying to be competitive in the parameters of the rules.

Shouldn’t the change come from the football authorities or government? Is it AFCB’s role to be moral bastions of society to their own detriment? That seems like an unrealistic stance to take?

It would be far better for a blanket ban, like tobacco in Formula One.
 
Obesity is an even bigger killer and drain on society. Ban burgers and hotdogs at the ground!

Ban alcohol for the alcoholics!

Not everything must conform to shelter the most weak willed in society from their vices. I say this as a greedy b*stard - my vice is food - and if I feel the urge to clog my arteries with fat because I see some chips advertised then that's my problem, not everyone else's.
 
tedisking said:
Betting is legal, smoking is legal, alcohol is legal....I personally don't have a problem with the advertising of any of those products......I bet every now and then ,I don't smoke and drink in moderation .....anyone who is weak willed enough to get addicted to any of these won't stop because it's not advertised on a football shirt.
Click to expand...

Gambling companies must spend billions on advertising for a laugh. Make no mistake more advertising means more lives ruined but as long as you're alright I suppose that's ok.
 
DJ said:
As someone who doesn’t gamble and has never seen the point, I know I am vastly unqualified to comment.

I’m no more likely to gamble with the sponsor on the front of the shirt as I was last season when it was on both sleeves and the back.

Neither was I ever going to seek financial advice due to the MSP Capital sponsorship, nor was I likely to buy a new fire place when we were sponsored by Focal Point.

Clearly sponsorship and advertising does work, otherwise these companies wouldn’t do it.

But isn’t such a campaign aimed at the wrong people? The football club is merely trying to be competitive in the parameters of the rules.

Shouldn’t the change come from the football authorities or government? Is it AFCB’s role to be moral bastions of society to their own detriment? That seems like an unrealistic stance to take?

It would be far better for a blanket ban, like tobacco in Formula One.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.
 
Max Denim said:
Obesity is an even bigger killer and drain on society. Ban burgers and hotdogs at the ground!

Ban alcohol for the alcoholics!

Not everything must conform to shelter the most weak willed in society from their vices. I say this as a greedy b*stard - my vice is food - and if I feel the urge to clog my arteries with fat because I see some chips advertised then that's my problem, not everyone else's.
Click to expand...
No - it's everyone else's problem when you block hospital beds, take GP appointments and deny medical time to those who have conditions through no fault of their own, and block pavement space to properly disabled people because you feel the need to use a mobility scooter rather than use those feet you've not seen in a few years. I think I can agree with you on one thing though - you've got all the hallmarks of being a greedy b*stard.
 
Having a bet is not necessarily a bad thing - lot of people love a 'little' flutter' and horse racing depends on it. It also provides many many jobs here and worldwide. I absolutely get that gambling addiction is clearly awful for those who develop it and more could be done to manage 'overbetting' - especially online. You can't ban gambling though and even if you could it would be merely driven underground. I don't like that we have a gambling Company as our main sponsors but I also don't think us taking the moral high ground would make a blind bit of difference. I think a bit of pragmatism is needed here. I'd be more upset if our Club was built on gambling - like Brighton and Brentford - even more so in the case of Stoke.
 
DJ said:
As someone who doesn’t gamble and has never seen the point, I know I am vastly unqualified to comment.

I’m no more likely to gamble with the sponsor on the front of the shirt as I was last season when it was on both sleeves and the back.

Neither was I ever going to seek financial advice due to the MSP Capital sponsorship, nor was I likely to buy a new fire place when we were sponsored by Focal Point.

Clearly sponsorship and advertising does work, otherwise these companies wouldn’t do it.

But isn’t such a campaign aimed at the wrong people? The football club is merely trying to be competitive in the parameters of the rules.

Shouldn’t the change come from the football authorities or government? Is it AFCB’s role to be moral bastions of society to their own detriment? That seems like an unrealistic stance to take?

It would be far better for a blanket ban, like tobacco in Formula One.
Click to expand...

I think it's aimed at the right people because there's power in the club taking a stance. Twenty clubs cosigned a letter to government calling for gambling ads to be banned in football. The more that do, the more pressure there is on government.

https://the-bigstep.com/news/f/twen...tball?blogcategory=Football+shirt+sponsorship

I've emailed my MP about the issue previously, but think any business could make a statement by distancing themselves from gambling.

I've little time for the 'it's never affected me' argument. There's robust peer-reviewed evidence on the impact of gambling promotion in football, particularly on under-18s. Companies aren't spending £1.5 billion a year advertising their services without an impact.

As for comments about alcohol, smoking etc, the industries are far better regulated. I'd still happily have a blanket ban on sponsorship from all of them. France have managed a ban on alcohol adverts in sport since 1991.
 
BFC1 said:
You can't ban gambling though
Click to expand...

If a country that cannot find agreement on banning firearms manages to have very retractive betting laws including several states where its forbidden completely, I think you CAN ban gambling.

Also, I did enjoy your comment that its not necessarily a bad thing as it manages to prop up a "sport" that kills hundreds of horses every year.
 
It's clearly not black and white, and the mixed responses here help to demonstrate that. I've heard that gambling is the worst addiction a person can have because it affects not just the addict, but their families' basic needs as well and can literally lead to poverty and the safety of families if the addict resorts to borrowing from the wrong people. It often leads to alcoholism, self harm and in some cases suicide because of the inner turmoil it causes. Like with advertising tobacco, I feel advertising gambling is encouraging it. Of course, not everyone will become addicted, so there is an element of free choice that should be allowed. Also, banning advertising won't stop addiction. Having said that, advertising it on shirts doesn't sit well with me. Also, what about players who aren't happy about it or object for religious reasons? I agree that there should be a blanket ban on advertising on sports shirts. I also think that these companies thrive on addiction, and that's the problem.
 
DJ said:
Not quite my point. More an explanation as to why my stance would be different to someone’s who has been affected by it.
Click to expand...

Sorry Dave, I've had it a fair bit from various corners, wasn't targeted at you. Similarly, I've never bought a car from Seward, taken out Frizzell insurance or have brand loyalty to Goldsands (did we ever establish what they did?), but I see the impact of gambling in society and know we're at a time when people are more financially vulnerable than they have been in a long time.
 
Rob151060 said:
No - it's everyone else's problem when you block hospital beds, take GP appointments and deny medical time to those who have conditions through no fault of their own, and block pavement space to properly disabled people because you feel the need to use a mobility scooter rather than use those feet you've not seen in a few years. I think I can agree with you on one thing though - you've got all the hallmarks of being a greedy b*stard.
Click to expand...
Yes, so if McDonalds or Carling were our sponsor then the emphasis should be on the individual to not partake in burgers or beer rather than the reductionism of banning advertising for it because of the weak willed minority. *Waddles off*
 
Max Denim said:
Yes, so if McDonalds or Carling were our sponsor then the emphasis should be on the individual to not partake in burgers or beer rather than the reductionism of banning advertising for it because of the weak willed minority. *Waddles off*
Click to expand...

I'm actually wondering if the 'weak willed' are really much of a minority. My gut feeling is that around 50% of people are vulnerable to addictive behaviour = addictive personality traits. Not sure it's exactly half but I think it's a lot of people.
 
I felt sorry for a supporter who bet £250 that he could hardly afford to lose. But was certain he would win a massive profit.
You wonder why they do it if they can't afford to lose.
It's the ads on TV that annoys me, right up to kick off, then they bombard you at half time. Paddy is living a life of luxury on these poor souls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;