Premier League vote down front-of-the-shirt betting sponsors

The league's moves to strengthen its test come at a time when a Government white paper on football governance is proposing that a new independent regulator would set an “enhanced” owners' and directors' test, which would be intended to replace the tests used by the Premier League, the Football Association and the EFL.

Decisions taken by the Premier League board under the new OADT will now be subject to review by a new, independent oversight panel.

Under the new rules approved by clubs on Thursday, a person or a company being subject to Government sanctions is now also a disqualifying event, while the range of criminal offences which could result in disqualification has been extended to include offences involving violence, corruption, fraud, tax evasion and hate crimes.

Fit and Proper

I am 53, I have worked with, are related to, are friends with, or simply know loads of people who bet whose lives haven't gone down the shitter.

Do you think I am an exception to the rule?

Wonder if Newcastle Utd will fall foul of this... and is this an underhand way of preserving the current perceived Top 6 hierarchy?

I've never interacted with Danka, Hafnia, SportPesa, or Stake.

I did make a point of drinking Chang in Thailand. And I don't drink Carlsberg ever. So I suppose they have some impact.

It's probably not that big a deal.

You belong back in the 1970s with those who objected to the removal of tobacco advertising in sport.

I think people will gamble and have done way before the apparent influence of football shirt sponsors.

The advent of online Apps has made it more easy and when I'm not at the match, watching football in a local, I do see groups of young lads obsessed with their phones and their accumulators. It's hard to gauge who they support because they are more interested in the results coming in to match their bet.

Me, I occasionally put a pound on the odd horse and even then it's really only the main events such as Aintree, Cheltenham and Ascot. I base my theory on the Jockey's name, the horses name or the colours. That's as scientific as I get.

I think like most vices, everything in moderation. If you go too far, I don't think you can blame a logo on a football shirt. It's like removing alcohol related sponsorship from kids shirts. Why? When I was 7, I wasn't interested in alcohol and if I wanted influencing on match day or elsewhere, I only had to look at the adults whilst I sat with my bottle of coke.

How many Angry Bird addicts are there amongst the Evertonian brethren?

I'm sure some will feel strongly, but I think this is a bit over the top.

Geoff @4. Good point. If this is sanctioned, will Sky do the honourable thing and scrap their Sky Bet application?

Gambling, drinking, smoking, even energy drinks- they're all addictive and bad for us both mentally and physically, but over the years these companies have been allowed to advertise to sports fans and influence young, impressionable minds. Anyone that denies the strength in which advertising affects our buying habits and behaviour on a daily basis needs a reality check.

I read about a guy who lost everything his house repossessed, 50 - 60k debts with credit cards. He took his own life. His family accessed his emails and found because he'd been inactive on betting sites, there were thousands of emails from all the betting sites, they were still sending him free bets and offers 6 months later.

But if you are going to ban them, what about alcohol ads ? We know what damage that causes yet still our kids are watching these slick ads offering something that kids don't understand.

Common sense.

And as a side discussion, the badge.

I know many got emotive when we had that Nike contortion a few years back, but we've always changed the badge or crest worn on the shirt worn over the years. It doesn't change the badge of the club.

How about no sponsor and a more traditional and simple EFC at a diagonal slant on the chest? We know who we are and don't need a badge to tell us.

Just a thought. I know it's unrealistic given the need for sponsorship and revenue in the modern game.

Happy with shirt sponsors as they will surely be a major source of revenue. It's good to hear there's a consensus around banning gambling companies.

I support this planned ban. These 'new' betting companies prey on gullible punters with their apps and spurious offers. It is a poor look to have clubs linked with these firms, especially if a club like ours sells itself as a source of good to the community.

People will always gamble and most of them will enjoy it without harming themselves and their loved ones. But I draw the line at multi-million pound businesses rushing to the feet of spurious bookies for 'much-needed' income.

You're right though, all in moderation.

I've seen friends become addicted to the fruit machines in pubs. The joy on their face when they land the jackpot, but I always think to myself, how much did they put in to get that out? Break even at best?

Although it has always been there, the days of studying the daily newspaper, marking a few horses and a quick trip to the bookies are all but gone.

It's now at the fingertips of young people on their phone, who can bet in an instant.

I don't bet regularly and certainly not on football. But I guarantee I'll be sat next to a group of lads today more interested in how their accumulator is doing than watching the match.

Personally, I never gamble. I have an interest in statistics, and understand that the House invariably wins in either the short term or the medium term. I've been to a few racing meets and while I enjoyed the horses running and regarded putting a bet on each race I managed to go through the card twice without a single payout. I regard betting as part of the entrance fee, and while it raises the level of fun, it is not something I expect to make any return on and something I have no interest in or get any pleasure from.

However, I understand that many people really enjoy gambling, and I am in favour of people enjoying themselves. Like alcohol, just because a few people get into trouble and cannot control themselves does not seem to me to be any argument for banning the majority of the population from doing something they enjoy.

The alternative - as the puritanical idiots who periodically get some say in the USA demonstrated with prohibition and banning off course gambling - is that criminal gangs will offer something people want, but they bring violence and serious criminal behaviour with it. Would anyone in their right mind prefer Al Capone, Joe Kennedy and Bugsy Siegel to the local pub, Rishi Sunak and William Hill?

As far as I can see, advertising one method of legal gambling is intended to get punters to use that channel rather than another - it's a choice between Betfred and Paddy Power. All the proposal does is to deprive certain less well off football teams of some revenue.

The bit that really pisses me off, we as Fans have had NO say in Shirt Sponsorship, or Transfers or Contracts etc, yet we are the ones to suffer from any ban, through no fault of our own. If we were to get relegated (God Forbid) again it would be us as fans again who would feel the biggest impact.

Eight of the current Premier League clubs have betting sponsors on their shirts, none of the so called elite clubs do, I wonder who this benefits?

If I had my way, betting on football would be banned completely, but that isn't going to happen, there's far too much money to be made.

It didn't work before and that is why the Govt. had to introduce high street bookies because it was all backstreet and crooks. Just like all those years ago with prohibition all it did was put money in the wrong pockets. Banning something does not eradicate the issue.

The downside is some of the online firms have been proven to even bigger crooks. They allow people easy access to credit

They also seem to involve space on the club website, with a link to the gambling company. A few clicks and away you go. you can be in a virtual casino, or betting on almost any sport you care to name. And your football club seems, by its very association with this, to give the activity of gambling your money a seal of approval.

Everton have had umpteen betting partners over the last 20 years or so. I am sure somebody at the club could tell us exactly how many such deals the club has had.

And I guess the club also has stats on how many Evertonians have clicked on official club website links to these "gambling partners"; and perhaps also how many email addresses of Evertonians these "gambling partners" may have gained this way. Where did all this lead? I don't know. But I do think that if EFC wishes to be known as a community club that cares about its supporters, it shouldn't be involved in this.

The charity, Gambling With Lives, estimates there are every year in this country more than 400 gambling-related suicides.
Home - gamblingwithlives.org

I used to enjoy having a regular bet on the Saturday afternoon football programme. I still do occasionally. But my enthusiasm for that has largely gone because of the greed and cynicism of the gambling companies.

With the huge publicity in recent years about the social harm caused by gambling, I have been very disappointed that Everton should persist in entering into deals with betting firms.

And, finally, having the names of gambling firms on the front of the team's shirts doesn't seem to have brought us much luck either.

Good eye Peter. And as for our situation it is just about the club's association with the product/service sponsor. Surely we could do better

It does also seem that the clubs most effected by this reduction in revenue will be teams in the lower half in the table. This won't impact the Sky 6.

I hope the board pull there finger out and get ahead of the curve and secure a good deal going forward as we will be competing with eight other clubs for a decent alternative.
I won't hold my breath.

Applicable only to the Premier League, not the Championship or below.

Advertising boards can still display betting logos.

Betting companies can still be secondary sleeve sponsors.

Seems a bit of another "be seen to be doing something" fudge, when the reality it will still be there for people to see.

Do we have to cover up the hoardings on Ladbrokes on the high streets?

I don't recall buying Hafnia bacon. I never owned any NEC products. I don't know what Danka actually done. One-to-One on Everton's shirt didn't influence my choice of mobile phone company. I only drank warm Chang because it was what was on offer in Goodison.

Honestly. What will be the next target?

Just turn into the devil yourself then, go in your local bookies, turn the machine upside down, and smash it to pieces, is what I used to advise him to do, but his addiction was to strong unfortunately.

Bookies in Belfast that serve tea...BT9?

Life is about individual choices for me. I know some people are more susceptible and vulnerable than others and additions are easier criticised rather than explained and understood.

I'm addicted to Everton and football. I'm not sure there is a cure for me.

And I don't mean to play the seriousness of the subject down.

The names of alcoholic drinks have been removed from shirts, yet there hasn't been a reduction in the number of people who are addicted to drink, or people who drink just to socialise. Pubs are still ram packed at a weekend, especially for a game. Every pub down County Road is choc-a-block, before and after a game, and does anyone think the licensee cares clubs are no longer allowed to have a drinks name on the shirts?

Of course not, just the same as a betting shop licensee won't care. I don't bet…..FFS, I even forgot the Aintree meeting started today, but I doubt very much I would have turned into a compulsive gambler if I had this season's shirt, or anything with the name Stake.com on it!

Just by the same reasoning that I haven't packed in having a pint, just because Chang was removed.

My addiction has waned badly, but I still love going to Goodison Park, and I'm sure there will come a time when I will get back on the road with the fastest-moving light infantry this country has got to offer!!

Are they banning offers on drawing people in?

Back to gambling and sponsorship. I was watching the very early BBC News on the subject this morning. Classic contradictory BBC reporting.

On the Premier League shirt sponsorship, interviewing some character complaining it hadn't gone far enough. Okay, everyone is entitled to their view and opinion.

Next report, marvelling about the Grand National and putting a positive spin on how much punters will be placing on bets over the weekend.

You & I might not be, but a lot of us on here are pretty long in the tooth (I'm 50 in August) so we're likely less influenced. But younger people are hugely influenced by things like sponsorship on shirts. Betting companies should not be allowed in my view - same with beer companies and McDonald's sponsoring everything FIFA is also a joke.

Sport should influence young people in a positive manner, so betting, fast food, alcohol etc should not be allowed in my view.

It's not even a moot point in truth.

I have to say you have taken this theme to a ludicrous level with your idea of banning fast foods.

Would you class Nandos as a fast food? What about Pizza?
Is Pizza Express on your banned list or just Dominoes because they do a thick crust?

Did you even think through this idea before posting?

So the club can't advertise Greggs on their shirts but can sell Sayer's sausage rolls to 11-year-olds? In the ground right, under the noses of the Police.

Would Subway salads be banned??

Yep. Sport is about health & fitness and should promote these things, not using companies who themselves promote obesity, laziness, ill health, animal cruelty, and destruction of the planet for financial gain. Nandos, Greggs, McDonald's, Burger King all fall into that category. And if you think pizza is good for you, well, it isn't.

I guarantee you, footballers live under a very closely monitored diet & fitness regime which does not include these foods as being OK to eat. Betting is also frowned upon, in case you weren't aware.

I absolutely thought that through before posting.

Sacking Allardyce isn't our problem, our problem is the utterly thick way we've gone about recruitment since Moshiri took over – leading to the pitifully bad squad we now have.

Dyche came in when we were nailed on to finish bottom because we just couldn't score a goal – or even barely have a shot. And unlike the 㿞M Allardyce got to "improve" the squad, Dyche got nothing while Forest, Bournemouth, Saints, etc etc all spent heavily.

He's got a crap team scoring goals and we were unlucky not to go in ahead at half-time. Had we done that, we'd have won. Fine margins.

FWIW - I was a professional gambler for 18 months at one time in my life (about 10 years ago) and it's both stressful and a risky way to live. Pays well if you're good at it, but ultimately damaging.

And no, pizza & cheese are not good for you.

I'll reiterate it one last time - sport should be sponsored by companies that reflect health & wellbeing in my view. There endeth my input on this :-)

We can ban Pidgeon racing as well as Greyhound racing, fishing, pheasant shoots and numerous other sports as well.
Only one I don't like is fox hunting as the intended animal is run into the ground scared shitless and torn limb from limb.
As for gambling... I like a bet now and again, why should I be denied that because some become addicted?
Food...I like a pizza every so often, as well as a Greggs or a Subway, why should I be denied that because some people cant stop stuffing their face and become obese.
Everything is bad for you in excess, especially alcohol, so lets ban that as well.

I did it recently when as a nurse I was told I could not strike by my union as the vote went against strike action.

I immediately left the union and walked out on strike.

Thanks for your decent reply.

Pizzas and cheese are good for you. They are nutritious food.
All in moderation, James – just like gambling, ale, chocolate etc.

The reality of marketing is companies target the demographic that buys their product. The predominantly male profile that watches football also bets, drinks etc. Football consumers also purchase these products.

We (football fans) don't tend to go big on yoghurt and other health products. Hence, healthy living companies won't be the big-hitting advertisers for football. It's not going to happen, James.