Shirt sponsorship

[huw.Y.WattfromWare]

Sorry if this has been covered on the Money Tree Thread but morning papers are reporting that Boris will ban betting companies from shirt sponsorship. Yet another win for the big 6 who tend to be sponsored by multi-nationals and a big drop in income for the remainder.
Apart from how ugly the hieroglyphics is on our shirt I have nothing against betting sponsors. If you ban them from shirts you should ban them from tv and street posters first.

[Herts Clarets]

It narrows down the options for shirt sponsorship then. No

Tobacco
Alcohol
Gambling

As said nearly every club outside of the "Big Six" in the Premier League have gambling companies sponsor their shirts. Back to Hollands Pies sponsoring for 2 and 6 a season plus as many Steak and Kidney Puddings as you can eat.

[tarkys_ears]

Booze and fags can wreck lives and kill... eventually.

Gambling can ruin them in an instant.

I don't know what the answer is but how can gambling be seen as alright when so many other things, which have far less impact on life, are banned?

[jdrobbo]

People will know my stance on this.

Absolutely thrilled. There’s a long way to go but the campaign is gaining traction and it’s so good to know that our chairman has agreed with me that our club’s relationship with gambling sponsors should be reviewed.

Pleasing!

[dibraidio]

This could be a massive opportunity for us to sell a big sponsorship package like the Emirates at Arsenal or Amex at Brighton. Shirt and ground sponsorship in the one package.

[randomclaret2]

Lets hope we can easily replace the money the club will lose.

[dandeclaret]

Sorry if this has been covered on the Money Tree Thread but morning papers are reporting that Boris will ban betting companies from shirt sponsorship. Yet another win for the big 6 who tend to be sponsored by multi-nationals and a big drop in income for the remainder.
Apart from how ugly the hieroglyphics is on our shirt I have nothing against betting sponsors. If you ban them from shirts you should ban them from tv and street posters first.

Ban McDonalds, crisps, energy drinks from advertising - as they all affect people's health
Ban Credit cards and banks, because they allow people to run up debts and ruin their lives
Ban US Multi nationals and high street companies because their ethics are poor
Ban Nike, Adidas and all the rest of the sports companies, because they exploit people in poorer countries
Ban floodlights and grass growers because they eat un-necessary electricity, causing global warming
Ban the sale of alcohol, chocolate and pies in the ground, as they all affect people's health
Ban the sale of tea and coffee because of the working conditions they demand people to work in, and the environmental cost it brings
Ban swearing because somebody might get offended by it
Ban shouting, chanting and crowds because people with anxiety and panic attacks might find it overwhelming

Ban it, ban it all...... the world will be a better place if we banned everything we disagreed with. Apparently.

[nyclaret]

This is good news. I'm sure our new American owners will be able to find something suitable. (Insert funny American company here).

[Local cricketer]

It’s ridiculous. If I want a bet then banning it on a football shirt isn’t going to stop me. It’s like closing all pubs to save the alcoholics they will still find somewhere to drink

[NewClaret]

It’s ridiculous. If I want a bet then banning it on a football shirt isn’t going to stop me. It’s like closing all pubs to save the alcoholics they will still find somewhere to drink

I agree.

Since Alcohol advertising was banned, has there been a reduction in alcohol consumption or alcoholism? I just can't see how seeing a brand on a football shirt encourages someone to place a bet if they weren't already inclined to do so. It's just brand awareness, seeking to take a greater share of an existing market.

It just closes off a potential revenue stream for us and smaller clubs like ours and arguably makes us less competitive against clubs across the world that don't take this position.

If the government really wanted to do something positive, they should raise taxes on gambling in the same way they have tobacco/alcohol over the years.

[Longsider]

Lifevantage have sponsored Salt Lake City team since 2014. Not sure if that's when our chairman was involved with them. Who knows there might be some kind of link up.

[Bordeauxclaret]

It’s ridiculous. If I want a bet then banning it on a football shirt isn’t going to stop me. It’s like closing all pubs to save the alcoholics they will still find somewhere to drink

I’m sure you would but there is a very good reason they pay good money to have their names on shirts.

[Herts Clarets]

Booze and fags can wreck lives and kill... eventually.

Gambling can ruin them in an instant.

I don't know what the answer is but how can gambling be seen as alright when so many other things, which have far less impact on life, are banned?

Where do you draw the line? Because someone will have their life impacted negatively by some area of which ever business or industry replaces a gambling company.

Motor industry - someone will have lost a relative in a car crash
Petroleum companies - asthma and lung disorders blamed on emissions from above motor vehicles, so a double whammy there
Similar with anything related to airlines or travel in general
Banks - there will be people who have lost businesses, livelihoods, or property due to the financial crash blamed on the banks
Food industry - yes but you promote unhealthy food and are a cause of an obesity crisis

And so on and so on. Are we going to ban everything that offends because some individuals are unable to exercise restraint and self control?

I like a pint or a glass of red wine. But seeing an advert for a beer won't drive me into alcoholism.
I don't and never have smoked, despite growing up when most sporting events were sponsored by tobacco companies - snooker, cricket, Formula 1, rallying, all of which i was and am a fan of.
I don't have any betting apps or accounts. I limit myself to the odd lottery ticket but it is not going to drive me into losing my house gambling. I play the occasional game of poker on line, but only ever for play money.
I am fond of my food, but not to the extent i consume without limits and find myself weighing 30 stone

I get that gambling can affect lives - an old school friend of mine admitted the last time we spoke that it had ruined his life. It cost him 2 marriages and his house. But the roots of his problems were already evident at school. We used to play black jack for pennies. But that was as far as i went. He then moved onto fruit machines, then bookmakers back in the day when you spent all day in a smoke filled betting shop studying form on horses, placing bets and watching the racing on TVs. He told me that he had a six figure sum in an on line betting account. Wouldn't say how much but it was over £100k. He got that by gambling and ultimately lost it all, despite that balance being sufficient to clear al his debts and put him on a sound financial footing. All this was way before any betting companies being involved with football shirt sponsorship.

And finally, who is going to replace the tens of millions of pounds of income that our and other clubs receive from these companies? Clubs making cutbacks on non playing staff due to a reduction in income after loss of deals with Happy Fun Bet 88 32 Red dafabet 365 and all the other sponsors?

[tarkys_ears]

It prays upon people - gambling industry more than anything.

Fags and booze have been heavily regulated -- They'd get you supping 10 pints a and smoking 2 packs a day if they could.

Gambling seems to have a free reign, everything from sign up bonuses to free bets etc and the sheer volume of it. On tv it's full on, in your face from the SECOND the program starts. I don't necessarily have a problem with it but I do think it needs scaling back a bit.

If advertising didn't work, they wouldn't spend billions on it every year and they certainly wouldn't have a problem with regulation.

[Quickenthetempo]

I don't mind the shirt getting sponsored by betting companies, but Burnley have gone too far with all the training gear and leisurewear having the logo on. Plus kids sizes stopping at 13 so 14yr old walk around with it on.

But I have a massive problem with the clubs social media accounts actively encouraging fans to bet. That is wrong.

[claretonthecoast1882]

Anybody have a Hollands meat n potato pie washed down with a few vodka kicks for breakfast ?

[Gordaleman]

This is a bit like the British government saying, "If we don't sell arms to Saudi Arabia to kill innocent Yemini children, someone else will."

Governments and football teams might be very different, but it's time BOTH showed some ethics and morals.

Alan Pace has already commented on this issue and hopefully, our next sponsors will not be so controversial.

[Herts Clarets]

Anybody have a Hollands meat n potato pie washed down with a few vodka kicks for breakfast ?

Only whilst sat in my POCO home, mortgaged by TSB, bought through Hunters Estate agency, insured through Endsleigh and furnished from Oak Furniture Land whilst I tap away on my Lanway computer ordering a component from Multipart......

[Gordaleman]

Anybody have a Hollands meat n potato pie washed down with a few vodka kicks for breakfast ?

What's worse than finding a maggot in a Holland's pie? Finding half of one.

[ClaretTony]

I don't mind the shirt getting sponsored by betting companies, but Burnley have gone too far with all the training gear and leisurewear having the logo on. Plus kids sizes stopping at 13 so 14yr old walk around with it on.

But I have a massive problem with the clubs social media accounts actively encouraging fans to bet. That is wrong.

This doesn't affect me because I don't gamble other than still sticking my mum's lottery numbers on every week but I've been to meetings in the last two years and seen the devastating effect gambling has had on some people. It's rammed down your throat at games now, either attending (when we can) or on TV. Last season, ahead of the cup tie against Peterborough, we were chatting on the concourse before the game when some bloke came up to us, physically grabbing some of us, asking if we wanted to put on a bet. And some of the social media stuff from the club is downright wrong.

[Caballo]

I'd rather have Venkytash industries or whatever they're called on the shirts than a gambling company. So it's a yes from me.

[dandeclaret]

The world can often be assessed by triangles.... quite often in business it's time, resources, quality (if you want things to happen quicker, without changing resources, then quality will reduce)

In this case you could have "Personal Beliefs", Finance, Club Strength

In personal beliefs, one of the items you can have, could be Gambling / Supportive or Against. If you lock in against on that, then it's going to change the point of the triangle on finance - because it's going to remove gambling sponsorship from the finance, and clearly no other sponsors pay as much for mid tier prem sides deals, so this will reduce the finances.

This then gives you 2 options.

Number 1 - you fill that finance gap from somewhere else - TV Money is fixed in the main, so you have to look at other options, with the biggest opportunities being player sales, or increased match day revenue (from a fairly fixed base of around 20,000 people).

Number 2 - Club Strength - if you can't fill the finance gap, then the money you can invest reduces, so either the wages need to reduce, transfer budgets need to reduce or things like training ground /academy / ground developments will need to be scaled back.

So when Alan Pace states "I can promise it will be reviewed as part of the overall commercial strategy for the club." the above is likely to be some of the elements of that commercial strategy.

So..... How do you want them to change the triangle? Don't tell me you want to increase the ground by 10,000, or do more corporate hospitality etc - they are all growth items to push the club forward. How do you want them to fill the gap using current resources available.

[BurnleyFC]

I think people need to start taking a bit of responsibility for themselves with regards to being influenced and becoming addicted so easily.

I enjoy horror films but it doesn’t make me want to go out kill people (well, most people anyway)

People can always say “no”.

[Danieljwaterhouse]

Ban McDonalds, crisps, energy drinks from advertising - as they all affect people's health
Ban Credit cards and banks, because they allow people to run up debts and ruin their lives
Ban US Multi nationals and high street companies because their ethics are poor
Ban Nike, Adidas and all the rest of the sports companies, because they exploit people in poorer countries
Ban floodlights and grass growers because they eat un-necessary electricity, causing global warming
Ban the sale of alcohol, chocolate and pies in the ground, as they all affect people's health
Ban the sale of tea and coffee because of the working conditions they demand people to work in, and the environmental cost it brings
Ban swearing because somebody might get offended by it
Ban shouting, chanting and crowds because people with anxiety and panic attacks might find it overwhelming

Ban it, ban it all...... the world will be a better place if we banned everything we disagreed with. Apparently.

Have a read about gambling, it’s affects, it’s prevalence, traction and growth in our British culture. This is fast becoming a national emergency, forecasts are horrifying.

I’m not saying there aren’t other things we can and should focus on, but obesity, and addiction are two or the biggest threats to our country’s wellbeing.

[RingoMcCartney]

Ban McDonalds, crisps, energy drinks from advertising - as they all affect people's health
Ban Credit cards and banks, because they allow people to run up debts and ruin their lives
Ban US Multi nationals and high street companies because their ethics are poor
Ban Nike, Adidas and all the rest of the sports companies, because they exploit people in poorer countries
Ban floodlights and grass growers because they eat un-necessary electricity, causing global warming
Ban the sale of alcohol, chocolate and pies in the ground, as they all affect people's health
Ban the sale of tea and coffee because of the working conditions they demand people to work in, and the environmental cost it brings
Ban swearing because somebody might get offended by it
Ban shouting, chanting and crowds because people with anxiety and panic attacks might find it overwhelming

Ban it, ban it all...... the world will be a better place if we banned everything we disagreed with. Apparently.

Yer banned.

[claretblue]

Ban it, ban it all...... the world will be a better place if we banned everything we disagreed with. Apparently.

I disagree!

[huw.Y.WattfromWare]

I think people need to start taking a bit of responsibility for themselves with regards to being influenced and becoming addicted so easily.
I enjoy horror films but it doesn’t make me want to go out kill people (well, most people anyway)
People can always say “no”.

Strange you should write that as I blame all the street violence around the world on the ultra-violent movies and video games of the last 30 years. Sad world really.

[Dark Cloud]

This is good news. I'm sure our new American owners will be able to find something suitable. (Insert funny American company here).

Will "Big Wendy's" be allowed?? (Or not? )

[thelaughingclaret]

Going to be stupid in the football league if gambling shirt sponsors are banned there whilst the league is sponsored by a betting company with every player having said betting company in their sleeves. And what about them clubs that have their ground or stands sponsored by betting companies? What is stopping betting companies being shirt sponsors really going to do?
First of all these adverts for betting need to be stopped. At half time it is all betting adverts, it is ridiculous. I am sure it is the adverts that are the main problem. As regards most premier league betting companies they are not aimed at people in the UK but are aimed at people on the other side of the world unlike all the tv adverts, so stopping them but keeping everything else such as adverts, ground and league sponsorship going etc. would be exactly the kind of nonsense to is current inept government would do.

[martin_p]

This is only a positive if it reduces the numbers racking up huge gambling debts through addiction. It won’t.

[stripes]

Ban McDonalds, crisps, energy drinks from advertising - as they all affect people's health
Ban Credit cards and banks, because they allow people to run up debts and ruin their lives
Ban US Multi nationals and high street companies because their ethics are poor
Ban Nike, Adidas and all the rest of the sports companies, because they exploit people in poorer countries
Ban floodlights and grass growers because they eat un-necessary electricity, causing global warming
Ban the sale of alcohol, chocolate and pies in the ground, as they all affect people's health
Ban the sale of tea and coffee because of the working conditions they demand people to work in, and the environmental cost it brings
Ban swearing because somebody might get offended by it
Ban shouting, chanting and crowds because people with anxiety and panic attacks might find it overwhelming

Ban it, ban it all...... the world will be a better place if we banned everything we disagreed with. Apparently.

that reminded me of the trainspotting intro (choose life etc etc)

[stripes]

would we get more live games if we get sponsored by sky? or Amazon or by?or are they not allowed?

[Rileybobs]

I feel for all the people who work for gambling companies who are going to lose their jobs and become destitute because of this decision.

I'm being facetious of course, but whilst gambling is certainly an issue and the advertising of such should be reviewed, I'm not really sure that shirt sponsorship is a major issue. Not to mention the fact that our gambling sponsor, along with many others, can't even be used by UK citizens.

In-play betting adverts on the side of the pitch or during the half time break on the TV is a different matter.

[Billy Balfour]

Small club logo top left - the rest is MASSIVE ADVERTISING SPLURGE, yet people pay £50 to £80 for one so they can look like an advertising sandwich board. Crazy world. Oh, and our current shirt is one of the worst offenders.

[aggi]

The world can often be assessed by triangles.... quite often in business it's time, resources, quality (if you want things to happen quicker, without changing resources, then quality will reduce)

In this case you could have "Personal Beliefs", Finance, Club Strength

In personal beliefs, one of the items you can have, could be Gambling / Supportive or Against. If you lock in against on that, then it's going to change the point of the triangle on finance - because it's going to remove gambling sponsorship from the finance, and clearly no other sponsors pay as much for mid tier prem sides deals, so this will reduce the finances.

This then gives you 2 options.

Number 1 - you fill that finance gap from somewhere else - TV Money is fixed in the main, so you have to look at other options, with the biggest opportunities being player sales, or increased match day revenue (from a fairly fixed base of around 20,000 people).

Number 2 - Club Strength - if you can't fill the finance gap, then the money you can invest reduces, so either the wages need to reduce, transfer budgets need to reduce or things like training ground /academy / ground developments will need to be scaled back.

So when Alan Pace states "I can promise it will be reviewed as part of the overall commercial strategy for the club." the above is likely to be some of the elements of that commercial strategy.

So..... How do you want them to change the triangle? Don't tell me you want to increase the ground by 10,000, or do more corporate hospitality etc - they are all growth items to push the club forward. How do you want them to fill the gap using current resources available.

There's a difference as to how this is implemented though. If Burnley, as a sole club, take a stance then it will cost some revenue (although maybe only a couple of percent, it's not huge in the big scheme of things). If it's a league-wide ban then our competitors will be suffering the same and you would expect the market to adjust (probably reflected in the highest costs, transfer fees and wages).

[Chester Perry]

one would think that it will be difficult for the club to replace the £7.25m we get from our shirt sponsor - but the new owners have been bullish about the commercial opportunities since their arrival

on the subject of the OP, it was on the MMT thread but totally deserving of it's own, I am an advocate of the ban (as I have often stated) and posted this on Sunday, again on the MMT thread

The "I" with a disturbing report on the lucrative nature of football's relationship with gambling

Time to worry as football becomes the gambling industry’s most lucrative sport
We are at a point where many younger fans see a punt as essential to enjoyment of a game

By Ian Burrell
January 24, 2021 11:05 am - Updated January 24, 2021 11:06 am

When I went to my first football match as a six-year-old, the dominant sensory experiences were the vivid but sponsor-free blue and red strips of the players, the intoxicating aroma of tobacco and the animated noise of an adult crowd, chorusing the “na-na-na, na” refrain of Hey Jude.

Aside from the fading paint of a few hoardings, commercial messaging was absent. Looking at that game’s programme, which along with the crackling tannoy provided the media dimension to the ‘match-day experience’, there were ads for a dry cleaner’s, a paint shop and the local funfair.

Gambling was limited to a Willy Wonka-like Golden Goal contest, which shared £130 prize money among tickets that showed times coinciding with the ball going in the net. Then there was the vague hope of riches from a pools coupon ritually filled out earlier that week with a series of Xs.

The modern young fan experiences the sport differently. Watching games on Sky, he/she sees Jeff Stelling endorsing Sky Bet, or is urged “Bet in play now!” On the BBC there’s no escape from shirts embossed with logos for Betway, BetVictor, LoveBet or ManBetX – a study by Goldsmith’s University last season found that betting logos, either on shirts or billboard ads, were on screen for between 71-89 per cent of the time on Match of the Day.

Lucrative market
When I was a kid, betting was associated with horses. Today, football is easily the gambling industry’s most lucrative sport. Football gambling has grown with the global popularity of the English game, and the evolution of the sports media serving it.

Younger fans are brimming with tactical insight gleaned from data-rich modern sports coverage. They’ve built encyclopaedic knowledge of players from video games such as FIFA and Football Manager. Betting companies know this and feed them increasingly complex products.

We are at a point where many younger fans see a punt as essential to enjoyment of a game. Take James Grimes, who was 16 when he raked in £90 from a £5 stake for an accumulator. “I remember going to collect the cash and having the feeling ‘I’m good at this!’” Grimes did have an exceptional ability to read the game – by 17 he was a coach at Sheffield United’s academy. But by then he was gambling online and on his way to debts of £100,000, which wrecked his career.

He blames the ads: “When someone is telling you the game ‘matters more if there’s money on it’, that sticks in your head.”

Grimes, 30, runs the Big Step campaign for Gambling With Lives, a charity created by bereaved families of gambling addicts. Had he been born earlier things might have been different. “Traditional forms of gambling like the pools didn’t have the same addiction. I wasn’t born an addict but there was 24-7 betting sold to me through my favourite sport. There are hundreds of thousands with a similar story.”

A Government review of betting in sport will finish in March. Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden says the gambling sector has “evolved at breakneck speed” and sports minister Nigel Huddleston says we need to “pull our legal framework into the digital age”. A House of Lords committee recommended in July that betting ads be banned “in or near” sports venues, “including sports programmes”.

A study of football shirt sponsorships last week found that the Premier League has a stronger relationship with gambling than any of the world’s top leagues; betting brand shirt sponsorship went from zero to 50 per cent of teams between 2000 and 2020. In Germany’s Bundesliga, it’s almost non-existent. Simon Chadwick, professor at Emlyon business school in France, anticipates a ban in the European Union but not in Britain. “Some fans see it as integral to the match day experience and gambling is a significant source of revenue for the exchequer. You might see some public health messaging around it but I don’t envisage a ban.”

Pressure to cut ties
Clubs will claim that they can’t withstand the financial losses. But the same was said of tobacco sponsorship, a sinister presence in my youth when it was omnipresent in Formula 1, snooker and cricket. Plenty of global brands want their names on Premier League shirts.

For a game that markets itself as a societal force for good, endorsing causes such as the anti-racist Kick It Out campaign and the Heads Together mental health charity, it’s extraordinary that football should be in hoc to betting companies.

“Sports teams, star players and even broadcasters have been following brand purpose strategies which signal their commitment to important social causes,” says Richard Gillis, founder of the sports business podcast Unofficial Partner. “But does it undermine their credibility if they do this while simultaneously promoting gambling and taking money from betting companies?”

I also found this tweet from Barry Glendenning deeply disturbing

https://twitter.com/bglendenning/status ... 4229301249

"My friend's 11 year old son thinks having a bet on a game of PL football before kick-off is the done thing. There is no reason why he should think that apart from bookie ads. We try to tell him it isn't - just watch the game."

[dandeclaret]

There's a difference as to how this is implemented though. If Burnley, as a sole club, take a stance then it will cost some revenue (although maybe only a couple of percent, it's not huge in the big scheme of things). If it's a league-wide ban then our competitors will be suffering the same and you would expect the market to adjust (probably reflected in the highest costs, transfer fees and wages).

Isn't 2% roughly £3 million? Probably a first team regular annual salary?

When ITV digital went bust, it didn't unduly affect wages that players got did it? Just pushed up the debt ratios for clubs throughout the leagues, or forced clubs to run on much reduced squads of players - mainly because the global market wasn't disrupted, and therefore the top bar that everything is anchored to stayed high?

[dandeclaret]

one would think that it will be difficult for the club to replace the £7.25m we get from our shirt sponsor - but the new owners have been bullish about the commercial opportunities since their arrival

on the subject of the OP, it was on the MMT thread but totally deserving of it's own, I am an advocate of the ban (as I have often stated) and posted this on Sunday, again on the MMT thread



I also found this tweet from Barry Glendenning deeply disturbing

https://twitter.com/bglendenning/status ... 4229301249

"My friend's 11 year old son thinks having a bet on a game of PL football before kick-off is the done thing. There is no reason why he should think that apart from bookie ads. We try to tell him it isn't - just watch the game."

And recently, those 2 fantastic kids raising money by running 100's of KM's, in an interview with Jordan North thought that it was the done thing to go down the miners for a pie and pint pre game.... is that also deeply disturbing?

[Chester Perry]

And recently, those 2 fantastic kids raising money by running 100's of KM's, in an interview with Jordan North thought that it was the done thing to go down the miners for a pie and pint pre game.... is that also deeply disturbing?

in all probability, yes

[dandeclaret]

in all probability, yes

Fair enough - I don't think there's a way to that sanitised world that removes all external influences from the purity of childhood.

[Chester Perry]

Fair enough - I don't think there's a way to that sanitised world that removes all external influences from the purity of childhood.

I agree, but there has to be a balance, an education as to the downside. I am always and astonished and disturbed when I see families drinking heavily and behaving like many of us thought was the norm in the 70's it is like some have completely bypassed what the world has learned since then.

[Paul Waine]

The world can often be assessed by triangles.... quite often in business it's time, resources, quality (if you want things to happen quicker, without changing resources, then quality will reduce)

In this case you could have "Personal Beliefs", Finance, Club Strength

In personal beliefs, one of the items you can have, could be Gambling / Supportive or Against. If you lock in against on that, then it's going to change the point of the triangle on finance - because it's going to remove gambling sponsorship from the finance, and clearly no other sponsors pay as much for mid tier prem sides deals, so this will reduce the finances.

This then gives you 2 options.

Number 1 - you fill that finance gap from somewhere else - TV Money is fixed in the main, so you have to look at other options, with the biggest opportunities being player sales, or increased match day revenue (from a fairly fixed base of around 20,000 people).

Number 2 - Club Strength - if you can't fill the finance gap, then the money you can invest reduces, so either the wages need to reduce, transfer budgets need to reduce or things like training ground /academy / ground developments will need to be scaled back.

So when Alan Pace states "I can promise it will be reviewed as part of the overall commercial strategy for the club." the above is likely to be some of the elements of that commercial strategy.

So..... How do you want them to change the triangle? Don't tell me you want to increase the ground by 10,000, or do more corporate hospitality etc - they are all growth items to push the club forward. How do you want them to fill the gap using current resources available.

Hi dande, I think there is another argument: football cleans up its act and betting firms are not allowed to advertise as shirt sponsors; gambling free football becomes more attractive to new sponsors who, in competition with other "clean image" firms, bid for the new shirt sponsorship opportunities. As a consequence, Burnley and many other clubs earn more in short sponsorship going forward.

So, banning betting firms from shirt sponsorship results in stronger finances for football clubs....

Now, where's that new "20-goal-a-season" we are looking to sign?

UTC

[dandeclaret]

Hi dande, I think there is another argument: football cleans up its act and betting firms are not allowed to advertise as shirt sponsors; gambling free football becomes more attractive to new sponsors who, in competition with other "clean image" firms, bid for the new shirt sponsorship opportunities. As a consequence, Burnley and many other clubs earn more in short sponsorship going forward.

So, banning betting firms from shirt sponsorship results in stronger finances for football clubs....

Now, where's that new "20-goal-a-season" we are looking to sign?

UTC

Are there examples of major sponsors not investing because they feel that Gambling make the game dirty? Who are these Clean Image firms with large scale, multi million pound sponsorship capabilities? If there was so much money, why were they not forthcoming to outspend and remove gambling, if they felt that the opportunity was so good?

Why would they feel that once you've removed gambling, that the game has a clean image, with ongoing racism problems, player behaviour throughout this pandemic, ongoing difficulties for equality in sex and colour, and perception of fans behaviour generally to large swathes of the population viewed as unacceptable?

I'd say that gambling adverts aren't really the blocker to these companies, if they were even vying for shirt sponsorships.

[Harrythomsonscap]

This is good news. I'm sure our new American owners will be able to find something suitable. (Insert funny American company here).

HOOTERS???

[Paul Waine]

Are there examples of major sponsors not investing because they feel that Gambling make the game dirty? Who are these Clean Image firms with large scale, multi million pound sponsorship capabilities? If there was so much money, why were they not forthcoming to outspend and remove gambling, if they felt that the opportunity was so good?

Why would they feel that once you've removed gambling, that the game has a clean image, with ongoing racism problems, player behaviour throughout this pandemic, ongoing difficulties for equality in sex and colour, and perception of fans behaviour generally to large swathes of the population viewed as unacceptable?

I'd say that gambling adverts aren't really the blocker to these companies, if they were even vying for shirt sponsorships.

OK, if you want to stick with your first position, BFC will lose shirt sponsorship revenue if we aren't allowed to have betting sponsors...

I don't agree. Shed the "sad image" of football being a betting opportunity and you start to make football a more attractive sponsorship proposition for lots of large, globally ambitious brands.

[MiltonKeynesClaret93]

This could be a massive opportunity for us to sell a big sponsorship package like the Emirates at Arsenal or Amex at Brighton. Shirt and ground sponsorship in the one package.

I know AMEX's UK HQ is in Brighton, so that makes a good deal of sense. Curious to know what lead to Emirates sponsoring Arsenal and the stadium but perhaps that answers my own question.
Be interesting so see what sort of companies we could attract if gambling firms were ruled out.

[claretonthecoast1882]

Think the time has come to ban gambling, booze, tobacco and leather products.

Surely we can have an organic football played by teams in different coloured vegan approved sacks. No crowd noise due to the potential of someone getting tinnitus to be heard, no tackling for fear of someone losing some blood and no teams losing so no children grow up having to see their team lose.

kiosk serving tofu and non flavoured water only for refreshments.

[Dyched]

I know AMEX's UK HQ is in Brighton, so that makes a good deal of sense. Curious to know what lead to Emirates sponsoring Arsenal and the stadium but perhaps that answers my own question.
Be interesting so see what sort of companies we could attract if gambling firms were ruled out.

Pornhub

[claretonthecoast1882]

I know AMEX's UK HQ is in Brighton, so that makes a good deal of sense. Curious to know what lead to Emirates sponsoring Arsenal and the stadium but perhaps that answers my own question.
Be interesting so see what sort of companies we could attract if gambling firms were ruled out.

BooHoo might be quite fitting for some

[Sausage]

I'd go the whole hog and ban shirt sponsorship completely. Shirts look crap with any sort of sponsor. The quid pro quo would be a free-for-all on training kit: Jack Daniels tracky tops, Bet 365 shorts, Benson & Hedges socks, Pablo Escobar boots. Sorted.

Seriously, though, the day betting companies are banned from football sponsorship (and shirts in particular) can't come soon enough. We heard the same cryarse lack-of-money arguments from Cricket, Snooker and Formula 1 when cigarette advertising was banned a few years ago and I see no shortage of money and sponsorship in those sports today.