With little fanfare, the FFA has ushered in a sponsorship deal with betting company Bet365.
This isn’t the first time a betting entity has had a financial agreement with the FFA – TAB was an official FFA sponsor in 2013. It’s not difficult to understand why the FFA chose not to celebrate this development, with gambling addiction an issue that is only growing in seriousness.
The ease with which someone can bet on any sport in this country and the saturated exposure betting companies have during sports telecasts – often seen in integrated segments placed within match coverage – means not many people would welcome the sight of David Gallop beaming at a press conference while publicly championing a new bookmaker buddy.
In England, the Premier League is completely intertwined with betting and has reaped lucrative benefits. Even in the United States, with their unusual state-to-state discrepancies on the legality of sports betting, NBA commissioner Adam Silver has recently come out publicly to vigorously argue in favour of the legalisation and embracing of sports betting.
There are entire podcasts, listened to by thousands, dedicated exclusively to betting on American sports. It is in many ways a development made, in effect, only in the realms of officialdom.
Gambling addiction is an elusive moral subject. Those, like myself, who get no thrill from betting at all find it difficult to understand the appeal. Often this leads to a mild disdain for the problem – when the urge is so utterly untranslatable it’s impossible to be truly empathetic; just stop betting, it’s that simple, right?
Wrong. Where the rush of placing money on the line inspires only a repellent sense of anxiety in some, it inspires a hugely addictive adrenaline rush in others.
The results, paired with the technological advancements in online and mobile gambling, have made the industry one of the fastest growing in the world. Sporting bodies of government, recognising this growth, are reluctant to take a moral stand against aiding in this rapid expansion.
With a reform package announced in May 2017, the government plans to place nominal restrictions on gambling advertising during sports telecasts, creating a gambling-free zone that extends five minutes before and – if the broadcast begins and ends before 8:30pm – after the telecast. The restrictions apply to all forms of broadcasting, from public television to streaming and catch-up services.
The stated reasoning behind this reform is focussed on the protection of children and a community-held desire to protect them from early exposure to betting practices.
(Image: AAP Image/Ben Macmahon)
The problem is, however, is that many sporting broadcasts take place around the margins of that cut-off time, and it’s unclear as to whether it applies to the quasi-ad betting segments, like the kind that top and tail Fox Sports’ broadcasts, spouting odds and betting categories. Clearly, the fact that the FFA, NRL and AFL all have betting companies sitting in the higher brackets of their corporate partnership posters also somewhat undermines the intention.
It goes without saying that anyone who turns to football and any of its governing entities expecting to see pilgrims of ethical decency is more idiotic that naive. Financial benefit is held in higher regard than anything else, and the glinting pools of money poured into the gambling industry catch the eye like little else.
The industry has branched out to the point of even sapping at sports journalism. With news outlets and media companies shaving huge sides of fat off themselves, gurgling and withering as mass sackings and downsizes abound, the sports betting agencies are recruiting journalists to provide tailored content to their growing member bases.
Attracting users to their websites with star journos or featured ex-sportsman columnists leads to a bump in sign-ups just through proximity alone. Many of the writers I admire also moonlight writing cookie-cutter ‘Five things to look out for…’ type articles for betting websites. Theirs is an industry that can offer journalistic content as a bonus, with their main source of income standing sinisterly off to one side, rubbing its hands.
It’s bad enough that our national team is constantly billed as Caltex Socceroos, as if they’re playing just as much for the Jackson Pollock of petrol companies, splashing oil liberally over the planet’s natural landscape, as they are playing for the country.
No, it’s been deemed that another grubby smear, imparted by stained dollars passing from hand to hand, must also be left. Just because the football world bathes permanently in the slimy swamp of moral bankruptcy doesn’t mean this latest blotch should go, as the FFA clearly intended, unnoticed.
When a company, the name of which literally implies that there’s a bet to be made every single day of the year, advises one to gamble responsibly, it’s hard not to scoff.
People are of course free to spend their money in whatever legal manner they choose. Football in Australia can certainly do with more investment. To rail against bad morals in football is to walk headlong into the stiffest of winds, but there is, however, still valour to be found in every stride.
Post_hoc
Guest
AR, don't agree often but with you 100%. Makes you want to take kids to the games as they are not affronted by it as you say.
AR
Guest
Exactly. The only real point of difference in Fuss' outrage, is that the FFA and its franchises don't make as *much* money from betting revenue as their AFL/NRL equivalents. But boy oh boy are they trying.
AR
Guest
Thats just a lie. North Melbourne has a well-known policy that it will not invest in pokie-related venues. It's an admirable policy. Especially for a small club. But go on, talk more about the FFA's "no alcohol policy" again.
AR
Guest
Fuss asserted that the FFA policy was a "moral stance" taken by the organisation. When the Govt pulled funding, the FFA promptly abandoned this "moral stance". I'd call that a backflip. Mind you, I'm not knocking the FFA - do whatever you can to get money. But I am knocking Fuss - his claim for the moral high ground is hilarious.
northerner
Guest
Man, oh man. We are talking about moral values here. Morality doesn't come with a price tag. I recall an old story about George Bernard Shaw approaching a wealthy society lady and asking her whether she'd sleep with him for a million pounds. She said she'd certainly consider it. He then asked whether she'd sleep with him for a tenner. She was outraged - "what do you think I am" she demanded? "We already know what you are," he replied. "Now we're just negotiating the price." The AFL and NRL have indeed sold themselves for the income from the pokies. The FFA and at least two A League clubs have gone into partnership with betting agencies. They may not be getting as much money from gambling as the other two codes, but they've prostituted themselves nonetheless. There's zero moral difference among them. Likewise, I see no moral difference between the BBL partnering with KFC on a big scale, and Melbourne Victory doing the same thing on a smaller scale.
Hubris
Guest
Adelaide United is the licensee of the Castle Tavern, a pub with pokies. Of course, AUFC also play out of a stadium sponsored by a brewing company... http://www.adelaideunited.com.au/article/the-reds-can-now-offer-hotel-services/1o0jnidrs22f9z6k7qq8iwcxo But let's be serious. You don't really care about gambling, alcohol, fast food or whatever else. Your entire show of concern is one more tiresome skirmish in the ongoing code war that is your daily existence. Why bother? All you've actually managed to say across this (admittedly pretty thin) discussion is "whatever football does is fine by me, and I am ferociously opposed to anything done by any other code, especially the AFL".
Nemesis
Guest
"No sport or code is exempt." FFA & Aleague clubs do not own & operate poker machines. As far as I know, Super Rugby clubs do not either. AFL & NRL clubs get around 1/2 BILLION dollars in cash from Poker Machines. AFL & NRL are raking in $500,000,000 from Poker Machines. If you think this is equal to getting McDondald's, KFC & Hungry Jack's sponsorship, it shows just how unhinged you are in your bias against football.
northerner
Guest
I believe that self-same fast food giant also sponsors an A League club, and its main competitor sponsors another. So let's all dismount from our high horses: the purity of sport, if it ever existed, died with the arrival of the professional era and the metamorphosis from sport as a pastime to sport as a business. No sport or code is exempt.
pauli
Guest
It's worth remembering that in the world of sporting business, dollars trump just about everything else. It happens as Christmas is approaching that all of us on this tab are gleefully reminded of our true place in Australia's sporting landscape by people with little to do but cause trouble. Yes, this bright coloured hyped up freak show all but drowns out our humble little league, and guess what, it's sponsored by one of the most unhealthiest foods out there. Not only is there saturation advertising for this food outlet but they even give out special hats to wear at the games! I wonder what that is doing to the minds of children, who can legally purchase this product and consume it beyond any healthy level. Childhood obesity, and obesity in general, is a major problem, but it would appear not to be a concern for this once-gentlemanly sporting code. Sporting governing bodies are NOT moral guardians. They are just there to keep the games going.
Griffo
Roar Guru
Same could be said about taking drugs and abusing alcohol, Kaks, but that is the nature of addiction, rationality about stopping even while knowing the harm to self and others becomes harder. And that is the point: sports betting has become so pervasive and easily accessible (via smartphones) that a lot more people will be exposed to the potential of developing an addiction to gambling, and advertising and wrapping betting odds up with a sport you follow entices some to 'have a go', and in time some people in that group will have a problem. It seems irrational to you and I, but that is not how it works. Not to mention sport in general where match fixing is never too far away for any code just makes this a murky sponsorship in general. I think sport betting should go the way of cigarette (in particular) and alcohol advertising in general and be scaled back or banned altogether in association with sport. Sure you can still go and buy smokes, blot yourself out stupid at home or at a venue that serves alcohol, and can even go old school and visit the local TAB and blow away your life savings, but that doesn't mean it is not a problem, or can be a worse one if made mainstream. Unfortunately the FFA needs the cash - it would be an interesting discussion with them if they would take on such sponsorship if they didn't need the money - and if everyone cringes at the Caltex Socceroos, how much more so if they one day accept naming rights sponsorship to become the Bet365 Socceroos?
valhalla
Guest
but fuzzball has oft said he 'couldnt give a stuff' when pressed on matters pertaining to australian rules football ... or indeed any other footballing code for that matter .... if as you suggest its good strategy to know your enemy ..... in the context of the above confession, the only sensible conclusion one can draw is that fuzz's strategy is fuelled by insecurity and paranoia SMELL THE FEAR!!!!!
Ken Spacey
Guest
Know thy enemy is a good strategy
valhalla
Guest
and that explains his knowledge of current matters relating to australian rules football how??? by all means correct me if im wrong .... but not sure pokies were legal in victoria back in the 70s .... am i keeping up enough for you
mattq
Roar Rookie
he openly acknowledged a long time ago he was an avid VFL follower in the 70s. Keep up.
northerner
Guest
Take a look at the Socceroos' website. It's everywhere. They're even describing former Socceroos who retired long before Caltex came into the picture as "Caltex-Socceroos legends."
valhalla
Guest
for a self-declared soccer extremist, you seem to know a lot about australian rules football SMELL THE FEAR!!!
Nemesis
Guest
Too funny. The only reason North Melbourne doesn't have pokies is because their administration was so useless, they actually lost money from their poker machine ventures. So, it's not some moral high ground that has Nth Melb without Poker Machines. It's just incompetent administration. If you can't make a profit from operating Poker Machines you may as well give up.
Neil
Guest
It might not be popular these days but some of us do care about others, it used to be a common Human trait.
mattq
Roar Rookie
the FFA didn't back flip. The Fed Government pulled the funding associated with the programme thereby removing the incentive for sporting bodies to continue to shun alcohol sponsorship. hardly a back flip.
northerner
Guest
The FFA may not have sponsorship from alcohol companies but Roar has sponsorship from a beer company and a winery, and several clubs have sponsorship from local pubs and bars. Two clubs have sponsorship from betting agencies, and then there are the ones who have sponsorship from fast food and soft drink companies, which is a bit of a moral conundrum as well, given obesity-related health issues in this country. I don't think football is on any particular moral high ground here: it will obviously take whatever money it can get, just like the other codes.