zlacker

Maybe there could be some sort of identity based limit on how much anyone can gamble in a month?

Couldn't fully read the article though.

If betting wasn't allowed it would be significant income loss for sports teams as well. Maybe you might think that they don't need that much money, but that is subjective.

>>mewpme+(OP)
hell, make it opt-in even!

>>mewpme+(OP)
I think the core of the issue is that, much like social media addiction or nicotine pouches, the source of addiction is instantly available at any time in your pocket. There is no barrier to initiate the activity, even with smoking/vaping at least you had to go outside to get your fix.

When I was going to college I had multiple friends that would compulsively gamble whenever there was down time. They wouldn't have lost half the money they did if gambling only took place at Casinos, or at least at dedicated terminals.

>>sickof+11
I like nicotine pouches because its just plant fibre soaked/sprayed with nicotine. Its convenient like gum.

That being said I only do the 4mg option and usually after work with a beer. I dont think I'm addicted to them because I dont do them compulsively.

I know some people use nicotine to deal with anxiety or restlessness or something. I kind of like the buzz, since nicotine is a poison sourced from a plant.

Sorry tangential rant lol

>>mewpme+(OP)
How do sports teams derive income from this? Is it just in the sense of increased viewership and the possibility of sponsorships from the gambling companies? As far as I understand they do not get any money from sports gambling directly and are mostly not allowed (through internal ethics rules) to do any gambling themselves.

>>andrew+D3
"Miller says the NFL doesn’t get a cut of the amount wagered with these companies. But the NFL and its television rights holders, which pay the NFL more than $13 billion a year to broadcast games, have seen a boon from advertising by the legal gaming industry." (https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/10/business/nfl-super-bowl-sport...)

>>555562+5f
So we're talking about the indirect income from advertising.

The article is poorly worded -- yes, advertisers spend a lot of money, but were those advertisers to disappear, other advertisers would buy those spots. So the question becomes, to what degree does the induced demand raise the marginal profit for advertising spots. And how that in turn affects how much networks are willing to pay the NFL for licensing, and that in turn affects how much the teams get in kickbacks from the NFL. So likely marginal at best.

The flipside is also how much viewership increases because of sports gamblers watching that would otherwise not watch. Also difficult to confidently assert the value of.

>>andrew+D3
I live in a smaller country and all sponsors pretty much are betting companies. These sponsors by far are most lucrative compared to your usual brands exactly because of how much they make from betting. Other industries wouldn't be able to pay as much for sponsorship since due to not so large viewership they wouldn't gain all of it back.

Negatives aside if you are fine with the losses it could be viewed a bit like donating to the football clubs.

Larger football clubs could be fine taking pay cuts etc, but there would likely be many smaller clubs that can't pay their players on the pro or semi pro level any longer.

>>andrew+vj
Betting companies are willing to pay far more compared to other industries since they gain the most from this sponsorship as well.

I am not from the US and NFL could probably handle it, but I am from a smaller country with smaller clubs. If betting companies sponsorship was banned many clubs, even in the top league, couldn't play on the pro or even the semi pro level.

They gain the most, but in addition they benefit from the sport being popular so they are willing to help invest in making sure that would be the case.