TAKING GAMBLING FIRMS OFF SHIRTS IS NO SOLUTION

WHEN the season began there were 10 Premier League teams with betting companies sponsoring their shirts. Name them. Not the clubs, the bookmakers. In all likelihood, you can’t. Most of them aren’t even aimed at the UK market. Who knows their W88 (Aston Villa) from their M88 (Bournemouth), their LoveBet (Burnley) from their Dafabet (Norwich)? A new Gambling Act is likely to outlaw shirt sponsorship in English football, but what difference will that make? The constant advertising around sports broadcasts is more eye-catching than a set of unfamiliar characters on a bland, black everykit, the type all clubs seem to wear these days. Outside the Premier League, 17 of 24 Championship clubs have a betting company as shirt sponsor. At a time of financial crisis losing that revenue from such a competitive market could be very harmful. ‘Sponsorship needs to be something that is far more family-friendly instead of things that can cause addiction,’ said Carolyn Harris, Labour MP for Swansea East and head of the all-party parliamentary group for gambling-related harm. ‘It’s the messaging that’s really important. It’s a family environment and therefore the sponsorship needs to come from a family organisation. It’s one of the most obvious things to do.’ Actually, football isn’t a family environment. There are families there, but in a minority. And who gets to define a family organisation anyway? Standard

Chartered, sponsors of Liverpool, have recently backed the security crackdown by China in Hong Kong. Are they any more suitable for family consumption than Everton’s SportPesa? There are many ways to reduce gambling-related harm, but the majority require controls and intrusions on personal liberty that this Government finds so difficult. Far easier to take ManBetX off the shirts at Crystal Palace, cop an easy headline and think you’ve solved a problem.