The Coalition to End Gambling Ads target Everton and Leicester City

If you want to bet, bet. If you want to drink or smoke, do so.

Just stop telling us what to do.

Great detective work, thanks for the info.

Do we have any good and proper sponsors lined up with our new owners? I'm still waiting for Toyota to step in for naming the stadium.

So Toyota corporate in Japan is certainly not reluctant to be identified with a football venue. But whether they'd actually sponsor Friedkin's stadium is unknown. I haven't read any speculation about it in the US business press, just clickbait on sports sites.

Initially, I assumed it was Middle East based, but looking at the geographical locations in the US, it could be that they are largely positioned around the Gulf of Mexico?

It's our taxes that end up paying for treatment as well as families and society who pay a far higher price.

I thought they renamed it??

The French call the English Channel "La Manche" and in the "Republic" of Cornwall, it's often called the British Sea!!

No, Danny, it's the Gulf of Mexico.

The sleeve, Danny, never quite understood that.

But the number of gambling sponsors in UK sport seems to have gone stratospheric, and presumably they play a massive role in providing financial support to clubs that might otherwise go to the wall?

I think the rules on gambling ads are very different in the USA, Mike? Up until recently, wasn't there a blanket ban on placing bets by phone or other electronic means? Or am I getting confused by fond memories of that excellent old movie, The Sting?

Then there is the gambling addiction debate, and the 'nanny state' issue of how much the government should or shouldn't get involved in controlling this age-old 'vice'. I have no qualifications and thankfully minimal experience in that area, but I thought this was interesting:

Some researchers propose that human gambling behaviour reflects evolved tendencies toward risk-taking that historically conferred adaptive benefits.

For example, gambling can be understood as a form of “risky reward-seeking,” where individuals overestimate potential gains — an inclination that modern gambling industries exploit.

From this view, men tend to gamble more and engage in higher-stakes bets because male reproductive success is often linked to risk-based competition, paralleling other risky activities like big-game hunting or physical aggression. Younger adults may also be more prone to gambling due to the evolutionary advantage of status-seeking during peak reproductive years.

I have a betting App. There's never more than £10 in my account and I just use it for a bit of fun when the big horse racing events are on. Being the last of the big gamblers that I am, never more than £1 each way. I rarely, if ever, bet on football and certainly not Everton!!

And yes, the relentless ads and emails are irritating.

Is the States not restricted to gambling in certain states? Nevada and New Jersey? Maybe a few others?

I don't know if it's like the UK, but like TV Apps, you can only use them in the UK. I'm sure if something similar would apply in the US with each of the States having different laws. Over to Mike.

We are all susceptible to succumbing to obsession and repetitive bad choices, it's a scandal tbh.

Similar to betting sponsors creating more gambling addicts, when we were sponsored by Danka, did Evertonians get fatter?

In 2018, the United States Supreme Court declared a federal ban on sports gambling to be unconstitutional in Murphy v National Collegiate Athletic Association. In the years that followed, dozens of states legalized sports gambling, and the sports gambling industry has recorded record profits year-by-year.

I'm fully in favour of taxes on gambling — they should be as high as possible. So with other naughty things people do: booze, smoking, vaping... but I guess the list is nowhere near long enough to displace VAT and Council Tax, Income Tax etc.

Hmmm... maybe cutting government is the only answer... Elon, we need you!!!

I can put you in touch with an Abbot who runs a Monastery in Ireland I think you'd love it there! Mind you you would be missed on here!

There I go by the grace of God and all that.

The incidence of so-called 'Problem Gambling' seems to be remarkably low, though, Paul, at from 0.6 to 2.3% (of all gamblers, I assume) based on what I've read.

Seems what you are wanting then, Paul, is to restrict the freedom of the vast majority so that the tiny minority are somehow protected?

Protected from what though? From the worst aspects of their own personalities. And by whom? By the state??? Why?

Yes, it causes terrible damage to those affected... but should the rest of us carry the burden for the few who can't control themselves?

Back to taxation as the best way to deal with it...

I saw an acquaintance quite a number of years ago lose a lot of money. He sold a small business to a large chain and had quite a bit of cash.

One Saturday morning (before restrictions came in) I saw him lose, and this is absolutely true) £10, 000, betting £100 a spin, on a roulette machine in a bookies.

Everyone has a choice, and I do get Paul Hewitt's point, but betting shops are kept open in the evenings, when often there is no racing, to facilitate those who gamble on machines.

There are different types of gambling and I have made a decent enough profit over a few years (had accounts closed), but online roulette and fixed odds terminals in bookmakers is cruel exploitation of vulnerable people.

Your statistic (from 0.6 to 2.3%) is the percentage of all gamblers who seek help. The US National Council on Problem Gambling estimates that 5 million Americans have some form of gambling addiction, but only 5% of them ever seek treatment for it.

Gambling companies don't cause addiction any more than liquor stores cause alcoholism, but they sure do facilitate it.

As to the Murphy vs. NCAA ruling you cite, it changed the entire world of sport. It legitimized gambling in one fell swoop. No sports journo in my era would have dared mention a point spread or odds -- it would have instantly cost my job. Now those numbers are presented in every ESPN newscast and there are entire shows and segments on "Bad Beats" and how to bet. It's not my thing, but I have friends who love it and play every week.

One of my first consulting clients in Silicon Valley was a company that provided early geolocation technology to gaming providers to help them remain compliant with US access laws and avoid the terrible swift sword of enforcement. That business model was gone in one court ruling. Poof.

Me, I've only gambled on stocks and blackjack. When I go to visit Paul Tran in Scotland, I'll certain place a quid or two on his horses, but I've seen video of too many horses put down to really enjoy that sport very much.

On the opening show, she told anyone who would listen to back Starlyte (her horse) and it's just romped home at 12/1.

Get in, girl!

Lucinda was the winning trainer, and I was impressed when I saw her interviewed. Women trainers are virtually unknown in the US.

And who is responsible for that? The very people that are trying to close gambling down.

It's a hypocritical world we live in.

Meanwhile, thousands of Ukranians and Palestinians are dying every week.

I disagree from a Florida perspective.

I live near Ocala which is known as the horse capital of the world and the majority of horse trainers are women.

Today must be even worse.
But I thought Danka made photocopiers.

Like my old man said, "You never see a poor bookie!" A completely pathetic method of gambling, the ease of which was enabled to entrap more morons? Remind me who was the highest paid CEO in the UK this year?

People who habitually gamble deserve everything they get because they are idiots.

Anyone who bets more than they can afford to lose is a dickhead.

Completely different from what you said.

Even if you are fortunate enough to only lose what you can afford... you're still a fool.

I sometimes bet small amounts on the horses (I know, you never see a poor bookie) but it gives you an added interest in the race, and if you win, you can kid yourself it was due to your knowledge and skill.

Perhaps... perhaps not.

But are you saying both betting and consuming alcohol are a waste of money?

(I know, I've done it myself on football - they're not supposed to collude about setting odds. Also Betfair is an ideal platform for arbitrage bets - but I've not used that for donkeys years).

PH you know that you spend more on Carling than betting.

This is the original Athletic Article:

Everton, Leicester accused of breaching guidelines by advertising unlicensed gambling firms By Dan Sheldon

Everton and Leicester City have been accused by an anti-gambling body of breaching the Gambling Commission’s demands by advertising gambling firms which are now unlicensed in the United Kingdom but whose controls against UK customers using the sites are easily bypassed.

The Coalition to End Gambling Ads (CEGA) has written to Everton and Leicester, which respectively display Stake.com and BC.Game’s logos on the front of their playing shirts, and urged the Gambling Commission (GC) — the body responsible for regulating gambling in the UK — to take action against them.

The Athletic has seen video evidence which shows that while Stake has taken steps to deter UK customers, they are easy to bypass. The video shows CEGA creating an account on Stake.com from the UK by using a VPN, just ticking to accept the terms and conditions which do say, but only in the small print, that you can’t join if you’re a UK resident and then uploading a photo of a Stake advert involving an image of Bonnie Blue — a porn actress — at the ID verification stage before proceeding to gamble with crypto currency on the website.

Only after an hour or so did Stake’s systems spot the ID issue, restrict the account and ask for a new ID to be submitted. CEGA were free to gamble in the interim.

To access BC.Game’s website from the UK, the CEGA needed to use a VPN but did not need to verify any ID and was only required to submit an email address before depositing crypto currency and being able to gamble.

In February, the GC announced that Stake, an online gambling company and Everton’s front-of-shirt sponsor, was to have its UK license revoked on March 11 following an investigation into the company’s advertising conduct. A month earlier, CEGA had complained about a Stake advert that included an image of Blue.

As part of its statement in February, the GC warned other Premier League clubs about their sponsorships with gambling companies, including Leicester’s deal with BC.Game, a crypto gambling website.

The GC asked the clubs to demonstrate that “any steps to geo-block the sites” from the UK market are effective, before adding that “some blocking can be easily by-passed by use of tools such as a Virtual Private Network”.

“Clubs will be expected to carry out sufficient due diligence to assure the Commission that consumers cannot transact with the sites from Great Britain by any means,” the GC’s statement issued in February read. “The Commission will also be taking steps to independently verify effective measures are in place.”

Despite this, an investigation by the CEGA, detailed in the letter the anti-gambling charity sent to Everton and Leicester, has found that Stake.com and BC.Game “continue to be easily accessible from Great Britain using VPNs”.

“I have accessed both unlicensed gambling websites using a VPN,” the letter CEGA sent to both clubs read. “I have no prior experience of having used a VPN before.

“The sites pointed me towards cryptocurrency providers where I was able to purchase BitCoin and then deposit it in both websites and start gambling.”

The GC’s statement in February warned that “club officers may be liable to prosecution” and face “imprisonment” if they “promote unlicensed gambling businesses that transact with consumers in Great Britain”.

Both Everton and Leicester were contacted by The Athletic but declined to provide a statement. They are confident they are complying with the GC’s regulations.

Everton noted that their deal with Stake is a global partnership and maintain they have not advertised the UK market. They also said that they have done what was expected and asked of them in terms of being compliant with the GC’s regulations and were provided with assurances from Stake around the measures the company has taken.

These steps, Everton add, were carried out in a timely fashion and due diligence took place relating to the accessibility of the UK platform for UK consumers.

Leicester say they are in regular contact with the GC and are satisfied with their legal position.

Following CEGA’s investigation on Saturday, the coalition asked the GC what action it plans to take against Everton and Leicester.

When The Athletic contacted Stake regarding the CEGA’s investigation, a spokesperson said: “Stake takes compliance and regulatory integrity very seriously. The coalition’s actions were not just deceptive — they were outright fraudulent and illegal.

“They knowingly used a VPN to bypass geographic restrictions. They intentionally falsified personal details, including name, address, and identity. They deliberately misled Stake by accepting T&Cs they were in clear violation of. They fraudulently created an account using fake credentials, engaging in identity fraud. They attempted to conduct an illegal transaction, despite being in violation of multiple safeguards.

“Stake’s compliance systems worked exactly as intended — the fraudulent account was swiftly flagged and permanently closed. This reaffirms that Stake is not operating in the UK, has no interest in doing so, and enforces strict controls to prevent access from restricted jurisdictions.

“What’s clear is that the coalition acted in bad faith — manufacturing a scenario to defame Stake, all while engaging in illegal conduct themselves. We reserve all rights in response to these false claims and will continue upholding the highest compliance standards in the industry.

“The reality is simple: extreme, illegal steps were taken to create an account, only to have it shut down by Stake within the hour. This was never about fairness or regulation — it was a targeted attack designed to mislead.”

In response to CEGA’s letter, a GC spokesperson told The Athletic: “We have nothing further to add to our information notice which clearly set out that football clubs are expected to carry out sufficient due diligence to assure the commission that consumers cannot transact with the sites from Great Britain by any means.

“As we set out at the time, we will be taking steps to verify that any sites promoted by football clubs have effective steps in place to prevent British consumers from being able to access those sites and will act accordingly if they do not. We would not give updates on any enforcement action we may be involved in.”

The UK government’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which was also sent the CEGA’s letter, declined to comment, noting that it is a matter for the GC.

BC.Game did not respond to a request for comment.