We don’t have an issue with betting here at Football England. Do it or don’t do it, it’s up to you. We know that bookies are putting a lot of time, effort and money into advertising at football matches, but there’s no moral objection here. Equally, we’re fine with websites that choose to promote betting offers. There are plenty around, including some such as Latest Betting Offers that we use ourselves.
At the same time, we respect the opinions of those that do object to the relationship between football and gambling. We’re all entitled to our opinions.
What we do object to is blatant hypocrisy. Preach one thing, do another. It’s not cool.
A few weeks back, Football 365 published an article on what they described as football’s gambling problem. Here it is if you’re interested. It was a bit preachy, but like I said, theyr’e entitled to their opinions. Here are a few quotes:
At every single football ad break, the first ad is always for gambling.
Yet football betting has deliberately become unremarkable through its persistent omnipresence.
there seems no stopping the takeover of football by the gambling industry, and that’s to the benefit of no-one except those who feast on the profits it carves out of its low rent, shallow, debased culture, and still, more importantly, carves mercilessly out of human misery.
All the above was regularly interspersed with “ave a bang on that.” Poignant stuff I’m sure you’ll agree. Maybe a bit over the top. But we get the point, they think that advertising gambling at, or during the football is wrong.
But hang on, what’s this?
Now the arrow is our work (I know, top graphics right?) and is done to highlight the juxtaposition. But it does look very much like an advert for a free bet from an online bookmaker. Right next to a slightly selfrighteous article decrying that very thing.
So, Football 365, I have to say I’m confused. Should we be ‘avin a bang on that or not? Or is it ok when you do it but not when the football clubs or TV companies do?
As I said on your own site, hypocrisy is alive and well. But who polices the moral police?