Quote The FA is to end all sponsorship deals with betting companies this month following a three-month review. The governing body signed a “long-term” deal with Ladbrokes in June 2016 to become its “official betting partner” following a similar agreement with William Hill.'" https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... -companies What opportunities or threats could this present to the Super League and RFL in coming months and years. Whilst we are unlikely to follow suit, we are in a predicament where both major competitions in this country are sponsored by betting companies. Could public mood turn on betting companies like they have with alcohol? Unlikely.

Quote The FA is to end all sponsorship deals with betting companies this month following a three-month review. The governing body signed a “long-term” deal with Ladbrokes in June 2016 to become its “official betting partner” following a similar agreement with William Hill.'" https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... -companies What opportunities or threats could this present to the Super League and RFL in coming months and years. Whilst we are unlikely to follow suit, we are in a predicament where both major competitions in this country are sponsored by betting companies. Could public mood turn on betting companies like they have with alcohol? Unlikely.

Personally I don't think public mood has turned against Alchohol - I don't remember hearing the general public or fans of sports moaning about alchohol sponsoring events - it was the media, politicians and people with a vested interest. The smoking one was different.
I think we should use it as an opportunity and go and grab their money - we can't really afford to take the moral high ground and turn away sponsorship money.
The betting companies are still going to offer odds on the sports so as a sport, you might as well make a quid out of it.

I have to admit that I do find the links between sports and betting companies a bit distasteful, especially the sheer volume of advertisements during sports.

I think there will come a point maybe 5-10 years down the line where these sorts of deals aren't acceptable anymore. Perhaps Richard Lewis' prescience has been shown once again.

If we did need to move away from gambling companies. I'd wonder if we could get a contra deal from Sky for say 20 games to be shown on terrestrial tv and then we go sell that to itv or channel 4 or whoever we get the money and sky get to advertise 'Sky Super League' on terrestrial t.v. to sports watchers using us to convert some to pay tv aubscribers.

I don't like betting companies myself but where do you stop with all this "moral" sponsorship. I've never smoked but was always happy to watch tobacco sponsored RL competitions. We all have our personal likes and dislikes amongst sponsors anyway and while I don't like loan sharks, ambulance chasing lawyers and anything to do with Rupert Murdoch others may have different lists. So I take a pragmatic view point with RL sponsorship as unfortunately beggars can't be choosers. The best I can do is try to boycott sponsors of things I don't like - RU and the Conservative Party for example.

The current "trend" regarding betting companies, is a ticking time bomb.
Nobody knows when, exactly, but, there will come a point in future, when there are significant numbers addicted to on line gambling and gaming, when the rules get significantly tightened up.

RL, at present, cant afford to be too fussy as we dont have a long queue of sponsors forming a queue to Red Hall and we will remain happy to take anything we can get.

On the plus side, Ladbrokes is a step up from Foxy Bingo.

What about big company loan sharks such as wonga? Fairly sure they sponsored Blackpool during their year in the premier league. Surely a company like wonga, exploiting the most vulnerable people in society with loans at extortionate interest rates are worse than a bookies.

You also have companies like McDonalds and Coca Cola sponsoring massive global events like the Olympics and World Cup, at a time when the world is going through a obesity and diabetes crisis.

It can't really be down to the RFL to decide what companies are acceptable to make a sponsorship deal with, we sadly need to go with the highest bidder.

If the government were to ban advertising from a whole host of undesirable industries, I would fully support them with it.

Sorry but this is just nonsense.
Of course it's down to The RFL to decide which companies best fit the sports needs and to go to the highest bidder, regardless of any "fall out" would be totally irresponsible.
Of course, there arent too many sectors within the commercial world that people would object to but, to suggest that sport is open to the highest bidder, regardless of that company's ethics is just daft.
They should be enhancing the sport's image and that means going with sponsors that will help take the sport forward.
French football has severe restrictions on alcohol being advertised within that sport and of course tobacco advertising is banned just about all sport.

I think you will find it's the law that doesn't allow alcohol and tobacco advertising, the law set by the government, not French football or any other sports governing body.

Take anything we can get. One of the big sponsors is mushy peas ffs

Purely from a designer's point of view, there was never a better branded competition than when the Challenge Cup was sponsored by Silk Cut.

My grandma still calls it the Silk Cut Challenge Cup & Embassy for the snooker even though they haven't been the sponsors for ages now

Down with car/motorvehicle sponsorship, one of the biggest global killers. over a million people annually killed by motorvehicles, tens of millions seriously injured. motoring subsidised by all tax payers even if you don't drive, increased pollution causing premature deaths in tens of thousands in the UK alone, then we have obesity levels rising and the massive costs from that on the NHS, all down to people driving.
Why isn't there a big furore about sponsorship deals there?
Frankly it's bollox, if human beings can't control themsleves, whether that be driving and killing people, smoking/not smoking, drinking/not drinking (or drinking excessively) and gambling etc then that's down to the individual's. Banning sponsorship on the back of the harm to society it may have is nonsense because these people would do harm without the sponsorship in any case just possibly with a different product that isn't advertised/sponsor of an event/team.

I follow cycling and last year there was an Italian lower level MTB team sponsored by XHamster, if you really think about it, it's far less damaging to society than some of the supposed 'ethical' companies/industries.