Ben Brown Opts Out Of Betting Ads

[Demonstone 22,558]

As if we needed another reason to love and respect Big Benny, he's refusing to have his image used in betting ads.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/high-profile-players-refuse-to-play-ball-on-afl-betting-ads-20230228-p5cobo.html

[FarNorthernD 5,861]

I hope so much this catches on across the league. It could kill betting advertising in the comp. 

[layzie 33,814]

Man of the ages. A true leader and worth another donation.

[Bystander 903]

Good on him.

Does the AFL need the money that badly ?

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,787]

26 minutes ago, Bystander said:

Good on him.

Does the AFL need the money that badly ?

The major sporting bodies claim that they do. They are arguing that their earnings from broadcast rights will be less if the TV networks have their betting advertising reduced. I suspect that claim is right. So, the question becomes not just a moral one but a business one. Are we as supporters prepared to accept a competition with less revenue which either has to be replaced (eg, higher membership or ground entry costs) or there has to be a reduction in costs (most likely to be borne by reduced payments to players). Or a mix of both, of course.

When that becomes the choice, do people still want greater restrictions on betting advertising? Fair enough if they do, but it has to be understood that it comes with a cost.

My position: I don't  bet. But I also don't have a problem with the advertising. I find it easy to ignore.   

[The heart beats true 18,128]

6 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The major sporting bodies claim that they do. They are arguing that their earnings from broadcast rights will be less if the TV networks have their betting advertising reduced. I suspect that claim is right. So, the question becomes not just a moral one but a business one. Are we as supporters prepared to accept a competition with less revenue which either has to be replaced (eg, higher membership or ground entry costs) or there has to be a reduction in costs (most likely to be borne by reduced payments to players). Or a mix of both, of course.

When that becomes the choice, do people still want greater restrictions on betting advertising? Fair enough if they do, but it has to be understood that it comes with a cost.

My position: I don't  bet. But I also don't have a problem with the advertising. I find it easy to ignore.   

Good points.

Would less revenue really hurt the game that much though? I feel like 16 year old Clayton Oliver would still pursue footy if he thought he’d make 500k a year, and not 700k a year. The players realistically don’t have a comparable sport, and they’d still be well looked after.

The gambling money needs to go away in my view. An umpire was giving betting information to his mates. What more do we need to see before we realise it’s corrupted the game, as well as become a huge cultural problem?

[mo64 5,874]

11 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The major sporting bodies claim that they do. They are arguing that their earnings from broadcast rights will be less if the TV networks have their betting advertising reduced. I suspect that claim is right. So, the question becomes not just a moral one but a business one. Are we as supporters prepared to accept a competition with less revenue which either has to be replaced (eg, higher membership or ground entry costs) or there has to be a reduction in costs (most likely to be borne by reduced payments to players). Or a mix of both, of course.

When that becomes the choice, do people still want greater restrictions on betting advertising? Fair enough if they do, but it has to be understood that it comes with a cost.

My position: I don't  bet. But I also don't have a problem with the advertising. I find it easy to ignore.   

The TV networks probably claimed the same thing about cigarette advertising back in the day. 

I've worked in the betting industry and I'm a keen punter, but I find the betting advertising over the top. The ads aren't directed at long time punters like myself and my mates, they're directed at new punters who are primarily kids. And I've seen the pitfalls 1st hand of underage gambling.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,787]

10 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

Good points.

Would less revenue really hurt the game that much though? I feel like 16 year old Clayton Oliver would still pursue footy if he thought he’d make 500k a year, and not 700k a year. The players realistically don’t have a comparable sport, and they’d still be well looked after.

The gambling money needs to go away in my view. An umpire was giving betting information to his mates. What more do we need to see before we realise it’s corrupted the game, as well as become a huge cultural problem?

The issue with the umpire giving betting information can still exist even if legalised betting is stopped. It would just go underground. At least with legal, regulated betting, these types of problems are identified because the legal betting operators work with the sports to identify these problems. In short, the problems of cheating and exchanging information of this type are likely to be greater, not less, if betting was made illegal.

[layzie 33,814]

12 minutes ago, mo64 said:

The TV networks probably claimed the same thing about cigarette advertising back in the day. 

I've worked in the betting industry and I'm a keen punter, but I find the betting advertising over the top. The ads aren't directed at long time punters like myself and my mates, they're directed at new punters who are primarily kids. And I've seen the pitfalls 1st hand of underage gambling.

This says a lot, good stuff.

I know quite a few people who work in the industry with their heads in the sand. 

[Ethan Tremblay 30,861]

Nice sentiment by BB no doubt, but I bet he’s still happy to accept his full salary, a large percentage of which is thanks to the revenue generated from betting on the game. 

The AFL receive 10¢ for every dollar made by corporate bookmakers (Sportsbet, Ladbrokes, Neds and others) on the game. Which results in a massive windfall. 

The TV stations that pay for AFL broadcast rights, worth about $400 million a year, are partly funded by the huge advertising spending by betting companies. The (pervasive) on-ground advertising is worth $3 million to the AFL. A sponsorship with Sportsbet rakes in $8 million.

Edited March 1, 2023 by Ethan Tremblay

[chook fowler 19,459]

Good on him.

[Hatchman 539]

Its disgusting the amount of gambling advertising with Australian sport. One thing I am grateful for living in the US is that it is a lot less of a feature in sport here. 

 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,787]

1 minute ago, Hatchman said:

Its disgusting the amount of gambling advertising with Australian sport. One thing I am grateful for living in the US is that it is a lot less of a feature in sport here. 

 

Apart from Las Vegas, sports betting was illegal throughout the US until about 2-3 years ago. It will be interesting to see if the US media becomes saturated with betting ads as occurs here.

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

Onya Benny. I despise Betting Ads…

[ElDiablo14 4,999]

8 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Apart from Las Vegas, sports betting was illegal throughout the US until about 2-3 years ago. It will be interesting to see if the US media becomes saturated with betting ads as occurs here.

They already are, just watch the sports shows or sports news and you'll see odds for every single NBA game or NFL (or any league for that matter) ... I would say the US maybe a bit more subtle on how they do their advertising, however it is all around you if you pay enough attention.

[Timothy Reddan-A'Blew 5,133]

Good on you, Ben.

Without being able to see the whole article, it seems the action is about only one (small?) aspect of gambling advertising; i.e., the use of real player images. I'd say that 'loss' to the betting 'industry' (somewhat of a green-washing label, btw...) and consequently, to the AFL, is easily made up for.

Ceasing advertising altogether is far from an outcome of the players' actions. Ceasing legal gambling altogether is light years from it.

Interesting observations about the US experience, @Hatchman,  @La Dee-vina Comedia and @ElDiablo14. Down that path, to replace gambling advertising revenue, might we expect more artificially created breaks in our games for more advertising by alternative big-bucks advertisers - particularly by next-scourge-off-the-rank, the fast/junk food 'industry'?

Edited March 1, 2023 by Timothy Reddan-A'Blew

[dazzledavey36 54,947]

Good man.

[Bates Mate 4,487]

36 minutes ago, Hatchman said:

Its disgusting the amount of gambling advertising with Australian sport. One thing I am grateful for living in the US is that it is a lot less of a feature in sport here. 

 

The in venue  ads and live crosses on betting should be banned.

[hemingway 7,627]

59 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Nice sentiment by BB no doubt, but I bet he’s still happy to accept his full salary, a large percentage of which is thanks to the revenue generated from betting on the game. 

The AFL receive 10¢ for every dollar made by corporate bookmakers (Sportsbet, Ladbrokes, Neds and others) on the game. Which results in a massive windfall. 

The TV stations that pay for AFL broadcast rights, worth about $400 million a year, are partly funded by the huge advertising spending by betting companies. The (pervasive) on-ground advertising is worth $3 million to the AFL. A sponsorship with Sportsbet rakes in $8 million.

Ben still needs to be congratulated for taking a stand on the issue. It’s pernicious and a corruptive influence on all professional sport. Just look at horse racing. However, your point about whether Ben and all AFL players would be prepared to accept lower salaries is valid. There is no easy answer to this question.  However, it does require a total industry stance. An agreement initiated by the AFL supported by the clubs and the players. There needs to be a collective agreement that other forms of revenue need to be pursued to maintain revenue streams. Also an understanding that in the short term there will be less money from betting advertising. However, the stance taken by many clubs on eliminating pokies shows that positive action on gambling can take place. It may not be possible to achieve a solution but it is possible to reduce the reliance on gambling revenue. It is important for the long term health of the competition. Unless something is done, you can guarantee there will be future betting scandals that will engulf the sport and damage its image and credibility.

In its way, the issue is a microcosm of society. The whole planet needs to do more with less.  The planet cannot sustain a continuation of greed and avarice at all levels.  And AFL footy will implode long term unless urgent action is taken to eliminate or at a minimum reduce its reliance on gambling revenue. Once fans start doubting the honesty and integrity of the competition, the sport is doomed. 

[Bystander 903]

I don't think any revenue shortfall would or should necessarily be borne by players.

I don't think any AFL and club administrators along with coaches and assistants ( who together outnumber players ) would desert their posts having been offered similar money elsewhere.

I'm far from puritanical, but one more cross to Nathan Brown and I will....not sure quite what.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,787]

1 hour ago, Timothy Reddan-A'Blew said:

Interesting observations about the US experience, @Hatchman,  @La Dee-vina Comedia and @ElDiablo14. Down that path, to replace gambling advertising revenue, might we expect more artificially created breaks in our games for more advertising by alternative big-bucks advertisers - particularly by next-scourge-off-the-rank, the fast/junk food 'industry'?

This a good question. Presumably when tobacco advertising was banned, sport and the media found an alternative to replace those funds.

My bigger fear, though, is that if betting revenue ceases the AFL (and all others sports) will make up at least some of the shortfall by changing the spectator model altogether and make attending games a much more expensive exercise. The AFL has adopted a strategy over the last 40 years of trying to keep attendance costs down to encourage weekly attendance. It could easily decide to drop that idea and replace it with a model where attendance is significantly more expensive with an expectation that most people who choose to attend will do so much less frequently. Essentially, that's the US NFL model, also known as the "theatregoers model". That's what we already see here with the Spring Racing Carnival and the Grand Prix, but both get away with it because they don't have a product to sell for more than  just a few days every year. 

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,706]

3 hours ago, Demonstone said:

As if we needed another reason to love and respect Big Benny, he's refusing to have his image used in betting ads.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/high-profile-players-refuse-to-play-ball-on-afl-betting-ads-20230228-p5cobo.html

love this guy!!!

 

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,706]

2 hours ago, Bystander said:

Good on him.

Does the AFL need the money that badly ?

This is what irks me about the AFL.  All 18 clubs have opted in to support the "Love the Game, Not the Odds" campaign, except the AFL, whose major sponsor is Sportsbet, and last year removed the link to the "Love the Game, Not the Odds" campaign page from the AFL website because Sportsbet had a whinge. 

 

[YesitwasaWin4theAges 6,703]

James Brayshaw had his hand out with sportsbet the last couple of years the tool.

[titan_uranus 25,020]

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The major sporting bodies claim that they do. They are arguing that their earnings from broadcast rights will be less if the TV networks have their betting advertising reduced. I suspect that claim is right. So, the question becomes not just a moral one but a business one. Are we as supporters prepared to accept a competition with less revenue which either has to be replaced (eg, higher membership or ground entry costs) or there has to be a reduction in costs (most likely to be borne by reduced payments to players). Or a mix of both, of course.

When that becomes the choice, do people still want greater restrictions on betting advertising? Fair enough if they do, but it has to be understood that it comes with a cost.

My position: I don't  bet. But I also don't have a problem with the advertising. I find it easy to ignore.   

This is a perfectly written post which captures the core issue, as well as my position.

There may well be a way to replace gambling revenue, as I'm sure tobacco revenue was replaced over time, but in the short term it would mean a hit to the league's revenue. And that will disproportionately affect lower-paid players, and likely members too (increased membership costs, for example).

Of course, none of that means that taking a stand against it is the wrong thing to do.

1 hour ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Nice sentiment by BB no doubt, but I bet he’s still happy to accept his full salary, a large percentage of which is thanks to the revenue generated from betting on the game. 

The AFL receive 10¢ for every dollar made by corporate bookmakers (Sportsbet, Ladbrokes, Neds and others) on the game. Which results in a massive windfall. 

The TV stations that pay for AFL broadcast rights, worth about $400 million a year, are partly funded by the huge advertising spending by betting companies. The (pervasive) on-ground advertising is worth $3 million to the AFL. A sponsorship with Sportsbet rakes in $8 million.

Maybe, but maybe not. Brown is a very principled person, and it's not without example - Easton Wood is on record as having said he'd have accepted a pay cut if it meant no more gambling advertising.