Sydney's stand on betting

[SBD Gonzalez]

You see I don't understand how someone who loses say $2,000 and can't pay their bills that month doesn't think to themselves * maybe that wasn't a good idea and I won't do it again? Why would a mental health condition impact them betting?

You do know impulse control is a major mental health matter?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Sydney are such fakes.

In the year they trumpeted lgbt inclusion a Sydney player visibly called will langford a ‘******* NTTAWWT’ on a televised game

Ah well there you go then, end of discussion.

Effing love the internet.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Yes, “Current” means “ever thus”. Very good.

The way you used it in the post very much suggested that. Nothing could ever be done about gambling infecting sport because that's just how it is; gambling has always been a part of sport. (Exactly what the vultures want us to think.)

Forgive me if you meant something else, but that is very much how I read it.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

LOL

where the * do these clowns think COLA came from for all those years. If there was ever going to be some woke ass bullshit about gambling, swans would be the ones to do it.

Qatar is their major sponsor ffs

 

[kickazz]

I don't gamble online but have a little go on the pokies about 2 to 3 times a year.

Was chatting to mates about this Sydney initiative yesterday and raised the point that, as society, we perceive poker machines to be evil. Live betting on sport is seemingly far more accepted, as evidenced by the endless advertising.

So let's put it this way, why do we accept all of these gambling commercials when there is zero chance we'd allow an ad on TV for More Chilli or Where's The Gold?

Difference with pokies is the magnitude - tonnes more money is lost to pokies and they are by far the biggest sink for problem gamblers.

The issue with sports betting is that unlike pokies or horse racing, AFL, cricket etc do not primarily exist for betting. You should be able to enjoy them fully without the gambling aspect, but if you choose to gamble then that should be ok too.

Incessant advertising when children are clearly watching might create a generation that sees them as inextricably linked (I dislike the pejorative use of 'normal' in this context, it is just used by judgemental folk toward 'other' people. Betting in moderation is not abnormal, just like reading, drinking, hiking or whatever). People should develop a healthy enjoyment of the game first well before they consider betting on it. That's where the timing and volume of ads is important.

And BTW if you worry about your kids with sportsbetting, don't turn a blind eye to their iPad games - so many of these have mechanics not far at all removed from that of poker machines. They are being primed from an early age.

 

[kickazz]

So, for those having a go at the Swans (or other sportspeople) for them taking a stance on one particular issue, the "none of us are perfect so we shouldn't bother" line of argument is ridiculously lazy thinking.

This is very true, there is quite a bit of whataboutism in this thread. You have to start somewhere. Doing something is better than nothing.

But I totally agree with Bunk Moreland that this is all about PR. They selectively pick issues that we are allowed to frown upon in polite company. Right now, the key ones are gambling and fossil fuels. Child labour and rape (mining for smartphone components) are not, how shall I put it, trendy issues.

It has nothing to do with the relative pravity of the issue at hand. It has everything to do with how marketable it is.

 

[kickazz]

Who cares if there are lots of advertisements about betting. In the end everyone has a choice about what they do in their lives and what they spend their money on. Don't gamble/bet if you can't afford it if you lose.

True and this needs to be rammed home to the kids.

But advertising works and people overestimate their agency in the face of it. Why else would kids want to drink Prime for example.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Are you confusing Sydney with GWS? Sydney have 52,000 members, have zero debt to the AFL and have posted a couple mil profit last few years but even if a club is reliant on the AFL, so what? The AFL have non profit status and should be supporting the community as part of that, including clubs and not taking blood money from vermin like Sportsbet.

No, I'm not confused at all. The #1 item (perhaps #2) on Sydney's statement of revenue every year is distributions from the AFL. All clubs receive them, in the order of tens of millions per year. It's how the competition works. The AFL collects money centrally for certain things (the biggest being broadcasting) and distributes it to the clubs.

This money is underwritten by betting.

The direct money is from betting sponsorships and product fees. Indirectly, betting hugely underwrites the games #1 meal ticket - broadcasting fees. All the betting advertising we see is paid for - then the AFL sign billion dollar deals with the broadcasters and triumph what a massive success it is for the game.

In short? The entire sport is now hugely underwritten by betting. It works in the same way as horse racing.

If things are to change then that needs to recognised. Most people don't get it.

This absolute horseshit from Sydney is just PR garbage. The livelihood of every ******* in that ad, led by the CEO Harley, is significantly underwritten by betting and the advertising of it. He knows it damn well and this is just an attempt to pretend they do the very opposite of the reality.

Sydney might knock back some $100k sponsorship from a betting company - now they're actually crowing about it while betting remains the whole sport and league's #1 meal ticket.

Spare me.

Everybody in the game is in the betting business. Some like to pretend they aren't.

 

[kickazz]

No, I'm not confused at all. The #1 item (perhaps #2) on Sydney's statement of revenue every year is distributions from the AFL. All clubs receive them, in the order of tens of millions per year. It's how the competition works. The AFL collects money centrally for certain things (the biggest being broadcasting) and distributes it to the clubs.

This money is underwritten by betting.

The direct money is from betting sponsorships and product fees. Indirectly, betting hugely underwrites the games #1 meal ticket - broadcasting fees. All the betting advertising we see is paid for - then the AFL sign billion dollar deals with the broadcasters and triumph what a massive success it is for the game.

In short? The entire sport is now hugely underwritten by betting. It works in the same way as horse racing.

If things are to change then that needs to recognised. Most people don't get it.

This absolute horseshit from Sydney is just PR garbage. The livelihood of every ******* in that ad, led by the CEO Harley, is significantly underwritten by betting and the advertising of it. He knows it damn well and this is just an attempt to pretend they do the very opposite of the reality.

Sydney might knock back some $100k sponsorship from a betting company - now they're actually crowing about it while betting remains the whole sport and league's #1 meal ticket.

Spare me.

Everybody in the game is in the betting business. Some like to pretend they aren't.

Yep.

And all that Sydney video needs is a coda where they say "This is a step in the right direction. We call on the AFL to divest itself from gambling revenue". Then this would carry weight.

 

[Dirty Bird]

I would prefer gambling ads being banned as cigarette ads are

I would also prefer gamblers pay the state taxes, plus a $1k deposit on top of the state tax, one month ahead of gambling. That way there is no spontaneous punting but rather planned and limited by the pre payment.

Singapore has a similar system for locals wanting to go to the casino. Foreigners go in free but locals pay a gambling entrance fee.

Dont you mean The Singapore?

 

[Dirty Bird]

I think Adelaide has also done this? Sorry, can't see a thread anywhere but surely this is worthy of discussion?

Adelaide Crows join Here For The Game

www.problemgambling.sa.gov.au

 

[peetoo]

Difference with pokies is the magnitude - tonnes more money is lost to pokies and they are by far the biggest sink for problem gamblers.

The issue with sports betting is that unlike pokies or horse racing, AFL, cricket etc do not primarily exist for betting. You should be able to enjoy them fully without the gambling aspect, but if you choose to gamble then that should be ok too.

Incessant advertising when children are clearly watching might create a generation that sees them as inextricably linked (I dislike the pejorative use of 'normal' in this context, it is just used by judgemental folk toward 'other' people. Betting in moderation is not abnormal, just like reading, drinking, hiking or whatever). People should develop a healthy enjoyment of the game first well before they consider betting on it. That's where the timing and volume of ads is important.

And BTW if you worry about your kids with sportsbetting, don't turn a blind eye to their iPad games - so many of these have mechanics not far at all removed from that of poker machines. They are being primed from an early age.

Horace racing?

How about they just replace it with athletes racing daily with interesting names?

Would employ far more people and would be regulated better

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Yep.

And all that Sydney video needs is a coda where they say "This is a step in the right direction. We call on the AFL to divest itself from gambling revenue". Then this would carry weight.

Yep.

That's the thing though and why this is such blatant PR horseshit... they don't want the AFL to divest.

Money

Money

Money

Always back self interest, at least you know it's trying.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

No, I'm not confused at all. The #1 item (perhaps #2) on Sydney's statement of revenue every year is distributions from the AFL. All clubs receive them, in the order of tens of millions per year. It's how the competition works. The AFL collects money centrally for certain things (the biggest being broadcasting) and distributes it to the clubs. And gambling advertising revenue is only a portion of that. You're making out like there's nothing else in the pot, presumably so you can maintain your outrage at a club's apparent hypocrisy.

To a degree, this money is underwritten by betting.

The direct money is from betting sponsorships and product fees. Indirectly, betting hugely underwrites the games #1 meal ticket - broadcasting fees. All the betting advertising we see is paid for - then the AFL sign billion dollar deals with the broadcasters and triumph what a massive success it is for the game.

In short? The entire sport is now hugely underwritten by betting. Though I note you haven't provided any figures. Perhaps you haven't noticed that there are other huge advertisers during AFL game broadcasts, like Bunnings, Toyota, NAB, AAMI? It works in the same way as horse racing. Well no, horse racing wouldn't exist except as a minority pursuit without gambling. Aussie Rules thrived for well over a century without gambling ads. Now we'd be forgiven for thinking you're claiming the comp would collapse without them.

If things are to change then that needs to recognised. Most people don't get it.

This absolute horseshit from Sydney is just PR garbage. Imagine that, PR, in today's image-obsessed world!

A percentage of the livelihood of every ******* in that ad, led by the CEO Harley, is significantly underwritten by betting and the advertising of it. He knows it damn well and this is just an attempt to pretend they do the very opposite of the reality.

Sydney might knock back some $100k sponsorship from a betting company - now they're actually crowing about it while betting remains the whole sport and league's #1 meal ticket. Spare me.

Everybody in the game is in the betting business. Some like to pretend they aren't.

I've made a few notes on your post.

 

[Bald]

Anyone else catch Papleys post game interview where he was asked about commentating the horse racing for channel 7?

“Yeah love a punt!”

 

[Kram]

Let me put it this way: if a jockey made a video like this, you’d all be roaring with laughter and criticism.

This is exactly the same as that. Exactly.

This sums it up perfectly.

 

[Eshay187]

No, I'm not confused at all. The #1 item (perhaps #2) on Sydney's statement of revenue every year is distributions from the AFL. All clubs receive them, in the order of tens of millions per year. It's how the competition works. The AFL collects money centrally for certain things (the biggest being broadcasting) and distributes it to the clubs.

This money is underwritten by betting.

The direct money is from betting sponsorships and product fees. Indirectly, betting hugely underwrites the games #1 meal ticket - broadcasting fees. All the betting advertising we see is paid for - then the AFL sign billion dollar deals with the broadcasters and triumph what a massive success it is for the game.

In short? The entire sport is now hugely underwritten by betting. It works in the same way as horse racing.

If things are to change then that needs to recognised. Most people don't get it.

This absolute horseshit from Sydney is just PR garbage. The livelihood of every ******* in that ad, led by the CEO Harley, is significantly underwritten by betting and the advertising of it. He knows it damn well and this is just an attempt to pretend they do the very opposite of the reality.

Sydney might knock back some $100k sponsorship from a betting company - now they're actually crowing about it while betting remains the whole sport and league's #1 meal ticket.

Spare me.

Everybody in the game is in the betting business. Some like to pretend they aren't.

This sums it up perfectly.

Ah yes, you are critical of society yet you participate in it? Curious.

Your take: Swans can't criticise gambling advertising because the AFL generates revenue from it, which goes to the players.

What is your actual point here? No one can be critical of anything they somewhat benefit off? I can't be critical of poor working conditions because every piece of technology I own probably has some terrible part of the supply chain?

Or is the point that if the AFL stopped taking that money they wouldn't get paid?

Genuine mid-wit stuff coming out here.

If the AFL banned sports betting, and fewer people gave their money to sports betting, what happens to that money? It disappears magically into the ether?

Obviously not, other businesses get it, and generally it is far more productive businesses that employ more people and create higher productivity than sports betting, which by the way is almost all owned by internationals. Literal net-negative to the economy.

What happened to the good old days of Not Happy Jan.

 

[kickazz]

Ah yes, you are critical of society yet you participate in it? Curious.

Your take: Swans can't criticise gambling advertising because the AFL generates revenue from it, which goes to the players.

What is your actual point here? No one can be critical of anything they somewhat benefit off? I can't be critical of poor working conditions because every piece of technology I own probably has some terrible part of the supply chain?

Or is the point that if the AFL stopped taking that money they wouldn't get paid?

Genuine mid-wit stuff coming out here.

If the AFL banned sports betting, and fewer people gave their money to sports betting, what happens to that money? It disappears magically into the ether?

Obviously not, other businesses get it, and generally it is far more productive businesses that employ more people and create higher productivity than sports betting, which by the way is almost all owned by internationals. Literal net-negative to the economy.

What happened to the good old days of Not Happy Jan.

I think you might be missing the point.

It's not so much the criticism of gambling being called out here, but the baloney that is them basically saying "how good are we, we don't take money from gambling companies"

 

[Shane Heard]

I mortgaged the house and put it on us for the flag this year after our win against North. Will let everyone know my stance on betting adverts come September.

“If gambling is a problem, get a second mortgage to cover your losses.”

 

[Proper Gander]

I guess that's a different question though. Corrupt multi million (billion?) dollar organisations are not a rare occurrence in the world, no matter what industry.

In that case maybe there needs to be education about this in the latter years of high school?

Education on the matter wouldn’t hurt, but unlikely to address the juggernaut of advertising designed to normalise the idea of gambling and make it look a necessary component in following sport and having mates. There is education all through school about healthy nutrition and the dangers of overdoing your fast food consumption, and that isn’t competing with the saturation of advertising and offers from franchise companies like McDonalds and KFC. Schools are doing their best, but they aren’t stopping the population getting fatter.

Plus I get nervous when every social issue is somehow allocated to schools to fix, in an environment where every other influence is pushing the opposite message. It’s too much to ask of a group of people already underpaid, understaffed and over-worked and puts the blame on them for the continued social issues.

 

[Toump Ass]

Unlikely to address the juggernaut of advertising designed to normalise the idea of gambling and make it look a necessary component in following sport and having mates.

One thing I find really funny with gambling ads in Australia is how formulaic they are. A few of bros, one of them brown, one slightly overweight slob, all dressed in homogenous kmart my mum buys, real blokey blokes in a poorly furnished lounge room a big TV with sport on it. I dunno. Is that supposed to be relatable? Because I see these dudes on TV betting and think thank * I'm nothing like these fn idiots lol.

 

[The 747]

One thing I find really funny with gambling ads in Australia is how formulaic they are. A few of bros, one of them brown, one slightly overweight slob, all dressed in homogenous kmart my mum buys, real blokey blokes in a poorly furnished lounge room a big TV with sport on it. I dunno. Is that supposed to be relatable? Because I see these dudes on TV betting and think thank * I'm nothing like these fn idiots lol.

Well their target market is morons - makes sense really.