Date: 10th June 2019 at 11:25am
Written by:

The news that Aston Villa have partnered with another online gambling company for next season has definitely bought out the pitchforks and voodoo dolls, with many on the forum expressing, at best, distaste at the decision.

According to club suit Nicola Ibbotson,

“This is a record-breaking commercial Partnership for the Club, our promotion to the Premier League offers our Club Partners a global platform to reach our worldwide fan base.”

But many fans have no truck with this ‘deal with the devil’ and would sooner we had gone down the charity route (Acorns style), particularly in light of the perceived wealth of our owners.

It’s easy to see both sides of the argument. In an ideal world, football clubs should be (and be seen to be) promoting social and community initiatives, not selling out to tobacco, alcohol or gambling multinationals implicated in ruining lives.

But like it or not, football is big business. The money in the game, as we all know, is eye-watering and sponsorship deals are no exception. When we had Acorns on the front of our shirts, there was no such thing as financial fair play. Club owners were free to spend what they liked. Nowadays, they can’t.

It could be argued that Premier League clubs have enough income without the need for shirt sponsorship, and should offer charities the chance for some free advertising.

But all clubs, at any level, need to generate income and to do this competitively, they need to exploit every avenue available to them and that includes shirt sponsorship, or “commercial partnership” as it’s now known.

As site member SJH points out, sport and gambling go hand-in-hand, so replacing the partnership with 32Red with another gambling company in W88 is like-for-like and retaining a natural fit.

Money talks in football, and none louder than the money on offer from online gambling companies. Ultimately, if you feel that strongly about the deal, the answer is simple: don’t buy the kit. But like it or not, thee kind of deals are here to stay.

There may come a time in the future when the club are in a position to ‘put something back’, but until we are in a far stronger financial position, it’s hard to blame the board for taking advantage of such lucrative offers.

Thoughts, fine folks of Vital Villa?

 
Click for the forum

5 Replies to “Divided Opinions On New ‘Principal Partner’ W88”

  • Yup, I’d love to be all pure here, but I co-own this network and it partly exists because of the gambling advertising. Then again, I’m not (not quite!) a billionaire. If I was, there wouldn’t be adverts, or at least, would only be ‘worthy adverts’ such as Acorns etc.

  • I guess the attention of the FFP police means we have to at least be seen to be playing ball. But hopefully in a year or two we can promote more worthy causes.

  • It’s very simple – fans want owners to spend. Owners are only permitted to spend ‘X’ per cent of the club’s turnover. So to spend, owners MUST generate highest possible turnover. Hence we sell our prime advertising space to the highest bidder. As long as FFP exists, it is unlikely any club will give their shirts to a charity again.
    If we want a well-run club, we need proper businessmen making proper business decisions. This is one of them. Good news!

  • I’m pretty sure the vast majority couldn’t give a monkeys about it being a gambling company. Its the people who have an issue with these things that tend to shout the loudest though, anyone who is apathetic is unlikely to be on social media voicing their opinion. Obesity and diabetes are a massive issue too, so do we need to stop serving pies and cola at games. Too many people get on their high horse about these issues.

  • I’m an advocate for disabled adults, I could choose a line of work with more money.
    But I’ve made a choice.
    When you die you leave with nothing.
    The rich get richer, but I dont want any part of the poor getting poorer.
    Do not make money from suffering of others, simple basic rule. .

Your Comment