FA Betting Sponsorship Ban
The relationship between betting and football has long been a complicated one. On the one hand, a good chunk of supporters absolutely love to have a flutter on matches of both their own team and others, should the opportunity arise. On the other hand, the temptation for players to have a bet themselves on a match that they are involved in could be too much to resist for some of them, leaving the door open for potential corruption.
Given the fact that you can bet on such innocuous things as how many corners or throw-ins there are in a game, it’s possible for players to place bets that won’t severely alter the outcome of the match and are therefore rather innocuous. It’s still not right, of course, which is why there has long been a blanket ban on footballers betting ‘either directly or indirectly, on any football match or competition that takes place anywhere in the world’.
If the relationship between the sport and the world of betting has always been complicated, then that’s as nothing when compared to the way things have worked between the various governing bodies of the sport and different betting companies. After all, the companies behind some of the biggest names in the world of betting have good reason to want their names to be linked to various football tournaments, given that their target audience will certainly be watching.
As for the governing bodies and organisations in charge of the various football competitions, they like sponsorship deals because of the money they bring in. Yet it’s difficult for them to claim moral objections to gambling as an activity if they’re also accepting money off the firms that allow people to place bets on countless events. That’s part of the reason behind the Football Association’s 2017 decision to stop sponsorship deals with betting companies, which we’ll explore here.
Why Did The FA Have Betting Sponsors?
In 2017 it was revealed that betting on football as a sport was worth nearly one and a half billion pounds to the gambling industry. That included bets on the outcome of matches, the next manager to be sacked, the winner of the Premier League and other popular ante-post markets. Between October 2015 and September of the following year, bookmakers made more than £300 million from football bets alone. Sufficed to say, therefore, that bookies have long had a reason to want to ensure their names are associated with the sport as closely as possible. The Football Association always looks to bring money in via sponsorship, so for them it made sense to turn to companies that would most greatly benefit from having their names associated with the FA.
The FA is a not-for-profit organisation, so the money that they pull in through such deals is re-invested into the sport of football in the United Kingdom. This is often done through the likes of investment in grass roots, as well as development of stadiums such as Wembley. In 2016 the betting company Ladbrokes agreed terms with the Football Association to become the official betting partner for English football’s governing body. That covered not only the English national team but also the FA Cup and allowed Ladbrokes to be the only bookmaker allowed to take bets within the home of England, Wembley Stadium. With the Football Association hoping to re-invest the money it received from Ladbrokes, they were able to turn a blind eye to the more controversial aspects of the deal.
Why Did The FA Decide To End Betting Sponsorships?
In 2017 the Football Association began a three-month review into the various sponsorship agreements that it had taken on, including those with alcohol companies as well as betting firms. It was the betting side of things that garnered the most attention, however, thanks to the FA ‘being responsible for the regulation of sports betting within the sport’s rules’. The Association’s review came at a time when a footballer named Joey Barton had been banned from the game after admitting that he’d breached their rules on professionals gambling on the sport. After receiving his ban, Barton stated that the FA needed to ‘look at its own dependence on the gambling companies’.
It wasn’t just Ladbrokes that suffered, of course, with the Football Association’s decision having an impact on any betting company that had a deal in place with the organisation. Yet Ladbrokes was obviously the company that was hit the hardest, given that their deal was worth £4 million per year to the FA and gave them prime position when it came to customers associating betting and England games. When the FA wrote their written reasons for Barton’s ban they admitted that the player’s ‘difficulties [were] compounded by the fact betting is ‘everywhere’ in sport’. That acknowledgement, along with the accusation from the former Burnley player that the sponsorship deal was the equivalent of ‘hush money’ to stop the Association investigating betting too closely, is likely to be what prompted a change in the situation.
Is The Ban Fair?
Whether you agree with Joey Barton’s assertion that the £4 million per year being receive by the Football Association from Ladbrokes, as well as other money sent their way by betting companies, was ‘hush money’ or not, it’s difficult to argue against the player’s premise. It is very tricky for a governing body within the sport to tell players that they’re not allowed to have anything to do with gambling on football taking place anywhere in the world if they’re simultaneously receiving money from the company’s that allow people to gamble. As Barton said, ‘…they can’t solve the problem [of gambling], especially when they’ve got Ladbrokes as a partner. Because the players are going: “I’m not doing anything wrong”’.
There’s an argument that it’s not as clear cut as all that, however. After all, the Football Association and its employees always attempt to paint themselves as being above reproach on issues of integrity. The referee Anthony Taylor is allowed to referee the matches of both Manchester United and Manchester City, for example, despite having been born in Manchester. The organisation’s argument is that he must be trusted to act impartially, just as they would do over any issues surrounding betting on matches. Yet can they really be expected to try their hardest to take on betting companies when it comes to matters putting the reputation of the game at stake when they’re also receiving money from those same companies? Instigating a ban is the only way to be sure that no accusations can be made around that issue.
Other Betting Deals In Play
Part of the problem for the Football Association is that betting sponsorship is rife throughout the industry. Football clubs themselves can have betting partners, with advertising for betting companies commonplace at football grounds around the United Kingdom. In January of 2018, around six months after the FA’s announcement, the Scottish Professional Football League confirmed that it was gearing up to announce a improved sponsorship deal with Ladbrokes. The English Football League, meanwhile, was sponsored by SkyBet at the time that the FA’s decision was announced. They confirmed that they had no plans to end that, saying that they were ‘of the firm belief that there is no conflict in having a commercial relationship with the gaming industry’.
There’s certainly some truth in that, given that it’s the Football Association that is responsible for upholding the rules and regulations around players placing bets rather than the individual leagues and clubs themselves. Still, when Joey Barton’s ban was announced the former Stoke player Matthew Etherington told BBC 5 live, “It’s very hard and complex, but everyone needs to take a little bit more responsibility – the PFA [Professional Footballers’ Association], the players, the FA and the gambling organisations themselves”.
Will This Ban Go Further Into The Sport?
Having gambling as such an integrated part of the sport does make it difficult for players and officials to know where the line is drawn. Liverpool Football Club have a deal with BetVictor that makes the betting company their ‘Official Betting Partner’, for example, so how are they able to convince their youth players that gambling is something that they shouldn’t do? It certainly makes the issue more complex than it seems at first. The big question will be whether or not clubs and the various leagues involved in the game will start to implement their own bans or arrangements to end sponsorship deals with betting companies moving forward. The answer is that that is unlikely unless they’re forced to do so by the game’s governing body.
There are countless different areas of sponsorship that are morally questionable when it comes to football clubs. Alcohol isn’t exactly the sort of thing that you’d associated with fitness, for example, yet virtually every club has a sponsorship deal with a brewery company or similar. Likewise companies such as McDonald’s, Coca-Cola and Mars Bar all have sponsorship deals in place throughout football, despite the fact that obesity, especially in children, is becoming an epidemic. If those sorts of partners haven’t yet come under close scrutiny then why should betting companies? Perhaps the report of 53 footballers being in breach of the betting rules and that being the ‘tip of the iceberg’ would answer that question, if it was something that clubs felt in any way responsible for.
How Will The FA Cope Without Ladbrokes’s Money?
The final question that’s worth considering is whether or not ending the sponsorship agreement with Ladbrokes will adversely affect the Football Association. After all, they use the money they generate not only to invest in grass roots football and developing the likes of women’s football but also to use as prize money for competitions such as the FA Cup. Will the loss of revenue affect the organisation and its events at all?
The short answer to that question is likely to be ‘no’, given that the year ending 31st of July 2016 saw them announce a turnover of £370 million and a post-tax profit of £7 million. Even without the money that they would have received from Ladbrokes that year they’ll still have been in a healthy situation. In October of 2016 the Association announced a six-season broadcast deal believed to be worth $1 billion, suggesting that the loss of £4 million per year is likely to be easily absorbed.
