Anyone who is a dedicated viewer of live sports would be hard pressed to find a game that didn't include betting adverts before, during and after the match. For football in particular, the prevalence of gambling adverts is especially noticeable. I can just hear Ray Winston's voice now banging on about betting odds on behalf of Bet365. And he's not the only one. If I were to name every gambling company I've seen advertising the joys of betting on everything from goals to yellow cards and corners during a football match I'd be here all night. Seeing a gambling advert seems to be just as common as seeing the actual football itself!
Which isn't necessarily a problem for those people like myself who see it as just a minor (if not irritating) inconvenience. But for the 430,000 people in the UK who are estimated to have a gambling problem and the two million people who are at risk of having a gambling problem according to Gambling Commission, the relationship between sports and gambling has been increasingly thrust into the spotlight in recent months.
Even more worryingly so, a recent report by the Gambling Commission entitled "Young People and Gambling" states that there has been an increase in the number of problem gamblers between the ages of 11-16 years old as compared to last year. The fact that many people in this demographic are attracted to football and the Premier League in particular, has made the sport a prime target for campaigners and politicians aimed at reducing such gambling statistics.
Even more worryingly so, a recent report by the Gambling Commission entitled "Young People and Gambling" states that there has been an increase in the number of problem gamblers between the ages of 11-16 years old as compared to last year. The fact that many people in this demographic are attracted to football and the Premier League in particular, has made the sport a prime target for campaigners and politicians aimed at reducing such gambling statistics.
In recent months, gambling firms have come under intense public scrutiny and regulatory pressure by the government to do something to address the growing issue. Campaigners have long argued for a complete and total ban on the proliferation of gambling commercials, particularly during football matches. And it seems these hugely profitable gambling companies have finally bowed down to the pressure.
William Hill, Ladbrokes, Bet365 and other members of the Remote Gambling Association (RGA) have provisionally agreed a "whistle-to-whistle" TV sports advertising ban that will halt such commercials while games are in progress. The deal still requires ratification by the Industry Group for Responsible Gambling, but that will merely be a formality.
Whilst this voluntary agreement is a step in the right direction for ministers and public health experts, it has to be noted that there are a number of significant exceptions to the ban.
Firstly, the ban does not include horse racing. This is likely to upset some campaigners, but the sport completely relies on betting to be commercially viable, and it isn't as big a draw for the under 18s in the same way football is.
Secondly, though the agreement prevents gambling adverts during games, the deal does not include a ban on either short sponsorship nor digital advertising around the pitch. If the aim of a ban on in-game adverts in the first place was to reduce its exposure to young adults and problem-gamblers who may be more susceptible to them, then one has to question why it would be permitted in this way for 90 minutes in every game. Surely the number of people who will see the shirts or pitch side billboards are arguably the same as or even less than those who will see the half-time adverts?
Lastly, the ban only applies to TV advertising, and it remains to be seen what effect this will have on the number of young gamblers considering most of them are increasingly consuming gambling adverts online.
Dr Heather Wardle of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine acknowledged this problem, admitting, "gambling is heavily advertised and marketed online, through social media and through sponsorship, where it is very difficult to control who receives these messages".
Additionally, Marc Etches, chief executive of GambleAware, pointed out that the gambling industry spends about five times as much on online advertising as it does on television. Children are growing up in a "different world" to their parents with technology always present, he said. "The fact that it is reported one in eight 11-16 year-olds are following gambling companies on social media is very concerning".
So what effect would this ban have on football in particular? It is true that gambling provides lucrative revenue streams for BT and Sky's coverage of the Premier League and European club tournaments, as well as international games. The industry's ads was also visible during coverage of the last World Cup on commercial TV.
So losing these revenue streams will hurt, but such is the worldwide popularity of football and the highly profitable broadcast rights of the Premier League in particular, that the ban is highly unlikely to be a killer blow.
Spare a thought for the nine of the twenty Premier League clubs who currently rely on betting companies for their shirt sponsorship however, as this ban should be viewed as a worrying sign of things to come. In a climate of increased scrutiny, regulatory pressure and negative public opinion surrounding the role gambling companies play in society, it is vital that these clubs find another industry to help support their commercial objectives sooner rather than later.
William Hill, Ladbrokes, Bet365 and other members of the Remote Gambling Association (RGA) have provisionally agreed a "whistle-to-whistle" TV sports advertising ban that will halt such commercials while games are in progress. The deal still requires ratification by the Industry Group for Responsible Gambling, but that will merely be a formality.
Whilst this voluntary agreement is a step in the right direction for ministers and public health experts, it has to be noted that there are a number of significant exceptions to the ban.
Firstly, the ban does not include horse racing. This is likely to upset some campaigners, but the sport completely relies on betting to be commercially viable, and it isn't as big a draw for the under 18s in the same way football is.
Secondly, though the agreement prevents gambling adverts during games, the deal does not include a ban on either short sponsorship nor digital advertising around the pitch. If the aim of a ban on in-game adverts in the first place was to reduce its exposure to young adults and problem-gamblers who may be more susceptible to them, then one has to question why it would be permitted in this way for 90 minutes in every game. Surely the number of people who will see the shirts or pitch side billboards are arguably the same as or even less than those who will see the half-time adverts?
Lastly, the ban only applies to TV advertising, and it remains to be seen what effect this will have on the number of young gamblers considering most of them are increasingly consuming gambling adverts online.
Dr Heather Wardle of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine acknowledged this problem, admitting, "gambling is heavily advertised and marketed online, through social media and through sponsorship, where it is very difficult to control who receives these messages".
Additionally, Marc Etches, chief executive of GambleAware, pointed out that the gambling industry spends about five times as much on online advertising as it does on television. Children are growing up in a "different world" to their parents with technology always present, he said. "The fact that it is reported one in eight 11-16 year-olds are following gambling companies on social media is very concerning".
So what effect would this ban have on football in particular? It is true that gambling provides lucrative revenue streams for BT and Sky's coverage of the Premier League and European club tournaments, as well as international games. The industry's ads was also visible during coverage of the last World Cup on commercial TV.
So losing these revenue streams will hurt, but such is the worldwide popularity of football and the highly profitable broadcast rights of the Premier League in particular, that the ban is highly unlikely to be a killer blow.
Spare a thought for the nine of the twenty Premier League clubs who currently rely on betting companies for their shirt sponsorship however, as this ban should be viewed as a worrying sign of things to come. In a climate of increased scrutiny, regulatory pressure and negative public opinion surrounding the role gambling companies play in society, it is vital that these clubs find another industry to help support their commercial objectives sooner rather than later.
