Sports tackling problem gambling with slogans

You are pathetic but we are happy to cash in on your addiction.

Or how about just: Thanks for all your money.

I'm working on suggestions for the latest "tagline" to accompany betting adverts.

From the end of last month, the glut of betting companies which service the lucrative sport market have been required to use specific warnings in their advertising.

These include: "Chances are you're about to lose", "What's gambling really costing you?", "You win some. You lost more" and several more bland forgettable phrases along the lines of how mothers tell children not to come crying to them if dangerous horseplay results in serious injury.

Obviously, coming up with a slogan is a much more responsible way of tackling a serious social problem than any form of adequate governance and policing.

And since none of those taglines are likely to make much of a dent in the multi-billion dollar industry, maybe it's time to take a leaf out of the Transport Accident Commission's 1989 offering "If you drink, then drive, you're a bloody idiot," which became such a catchphrase in Australia, it was subsequently adopted in other countries including Canada and New Zealand.

As has been observed before, getting sports followers to limit their gambling is like getting Americans to limit their weaponry.

And there are few stakeholders involved without a vested interest - this newspaper included.

Earlier this month, AFL boss Gillon McLachlan responded to concerns about the league's reliance on this particular revenue stream by admitting it receives a cut of gambling turnover on matches beyond official sponsorship deals.

While Australia is a proud global leader in problem gambling, the issue is hardly limited to our shores.

Just last week, English Premier League clubs collectively agreed to withdraw gambling sponsorship from the front of their matchday shirts.

The league's press release proclaimed how they were "becoming the first sports league in the UK to take such a measure voluntarily in order to reduce gambling advertising".

However, what sounded like a giant leap forward was somewhat reduced to more of a tentative water-testing toe-dip by smallprint which revealed gambling sponsorship would still be allowed on the sleeves of those playing shirts and throughout the stadiums while the ban would not come into effect until the end of the 2025-26 season in order to "assist clubs with their transition away from shirt-front gambling sponsorship".

The release added that: "The Premier League is also working with other sports on the development of a new code for responsible gambling sponsorship." Yeah, good luck with that.

Despite my sarcasm, this was a reasonably significant step, not least because the league is so utterly reliant on gambling sponsorship in the first place.

Of the 20 Premier League clubs, Bournemouth, Brentford, Everton, Fulham, Leeds, Newcastle, Southampton and West Ham have betting companies as front-of-shirt sponsors while Aston Villa and Wolves have betting-related sleeve adverts, with a combined value of £60 million a year.

Meanwhile betting sponsorships in the supporting English Football League are worth up to £40m a year to clubs.

The move didn't exactly receive a ringing endorsement.

James Grimes, founder of The Big Step campaign dedicated to ending the relationship between football and betting, told The Guardian: "Just moving logos to a different part of the kit while allowing pitchside advertising to continue is totally incoherent."

The paper also reported that a University of Stirling study had found that gambling company logos were visible more than 500 times during the average televised match.

Nobody embodies the scale of England's gambling pandemic more than Ivan Toney. The 26-year-old England striker has pleaded guilty to many of 262 charges issued by the Football Association over alleged breaches of betting rules. He faces a potential ban of up to six months.

Toney earns a healthy salary wearing a Brentford shirt sponsored by gambling website Hollywood Bets.

The Twittersphere wasn't slow to point out this apparent hypocrisy and how exposing wealthy young men to a tsunami of gambling sponsorship might just prompt some to further explore the relationship.

Instead of problem gamblers, it's probably time hypocritical sports and leagues were asked the question: "What's gambling really costing you?"

It's not like they could ignore a slogan.