Questions about the Premiership

[ferricfoot]

Newbie fan seeks answers...

1. Where does the "Kop" reference to Liverpool come from?

2. Where does the "Geordie Army" come from?

3. Middlesborough's jersey sponsor is 888.com, which I understand to be a gambling website. What, if any, are the guidelines about corporate sponsorship?

On this side of the pond, the professional sports leagues take a dim view on Las Vegas, so despite being a very fast growing city, they do not have a professional team (unless Arena Football League counts). I believe the NFL also turned down a Las Vegas ad for the Superbowl, despite the fact that much of American football's popularity is tied to gambling.

If there are no rules, what is the most outrageous corporate sponsorship? Does a brothel sponsor a lower division Dutch team?!

Thanks in advance.

[Los Libero]

Newbie fan seeks answers...

1. Where does the "Kop" reference to Liverpool come from?

It is a reference to the Boer War. The "Spion Kop" is a Hill in South Africa, and I do believe it was first at Arsenal's stadium before they moved to Highbury. There's a few stands throughout England called the Kop or Spion Kop, eg. Coventry's Highfield Road stadium.

2. Where does the "Geordie Army" come from?

People from Newcastle are known as "Geordies" in the same ilk as Liverpudlians being called "Scousers".

[michaec]

It is a reference to the Boer War. The "Spion Kop" is a Hill in South Africa, and I do believe it was first at Arsenal's stadium before they moved to Highbury. There's a few stands throughout England called the Kop or Spion Kop, eg. Coventry's Highfield Road stadium.
Yep, when Arsenal played in Plumstead one of the ends was called the Spion Kop.

3. Middlesborough's jersey sponsor is 888.com, which I understand to be a gambling website. What, if any, are the guidelines about corporate sponsorship?
As far as I know, there's no restriction on who may sponsor a team. If the FA tried to impose any restriction, I'm sure they'd be sued for restraint of trade or something.

[Wide Boy]

I think there may be restrictions on sponsorship from tobacco companies.

A few years ago - when Newcastle were sponsored by Brown Ale - they had to change their shirts for a UEFA Cup game away to Monaco. This was because of French guidelines banning the advertising of booze by sports teams. For one game only, we were sponsored by Center Parcs.

[Captain Splarg]

A few years ago - when Newcastle were sponsored by Brown Ale - they had to change their shirts for a UEFA Cup game away to Monaco. This was because of French guidelines banning the advertising of booze by sports teams. For one game only, we were sponsored by Center Parcs.


We (Leeds) had a similar thing happen. We were playing Troyes in the UEFA Cup and since the shirt said strongbow (an alcoholic cider) across the front, we instead played with no sponsor at all. It looked really nice.

[Los Libero]

As far as I'm aware, Arsenal played without a sponsor in Copenhagen against Parma in 1994 (CWC final), but we were sponsored by JVC. Odd indeed.

[Philip in London]

I think there may be restrictions on sponsorship from tobacco companies.



All tobacco advertising / sponsorship was banned in the UK (and the rest of the EU?) a couple of years ago, except at point of sale, and an exemption for Formula 1 which lasts another year or two.

[Wide Boy]

All tobacco advertising / sponsorship was banned in the UK (and the rest of the EU?) a couple of years ago, except at point of sale, and an exemption for Formula 1 which lasts another year or two.

Thanks for the reminder - it comes flooding back now.

The Formula 1 exemption was based on the (ahem) "donation" made to the Labour Party by Bernie Ecclestone, wasn't it?

[M]

3. Middlesborough's jersey sponsor is 888.com, which I understand to be a gambling website. What, if any, are the guidelines about corporate sponsorship?

On this side of the pond, the professional sports leagues take a dim view on Las Vegas, so despite being a very fast growing city, they do not have a professional team (unless Arena Football League counts). I believe the NFL also turned down a Las Vegas ad for the Superbowl, despite the fact that much of American football's popularity is tied to gambling.

As someone else has pointed out, restricting sponsorship by a betting company would almost certainly be a restraint of trade. Remember that individual teams in England are not franchises, which makes it a lot more difficult for a league to impose such legally-dubious restrictions.

Personally, I find the US's attitude to gambling both puritanical and hypocritical. It seems that Americans are not to be trusted to make their own decisions regarding gambling, but 'nanny state' has to make them for them. Additionally, bans on gambling strangely don't extend to state-sponsored lotteries, which generate huge amounts of revenue. Go figure...

[ferricfoot]

As someone else has pointed out, restricting sponsorship by a betting company would almost certainly be a restraint of trade. Remember that individual teams in England are not franchises, which makes it a lot more difficult for a league to impose such legally-dubious restrictions.

Personally, I find the US's attitude to gambling both puritanical and hypocritical. It seems that Americans are not to be trusted to make their own decisions regarding gambling, but 'nanny state' has to make them for them. Additionally, bans on gambling strangely don't extend to state-sponsored lotteries, which generate huge amounts of revenue. Go figure...


Strictly speaking, banning tobacco companies is also a restraint of trade, although the dangers of tobacco are better documented than those of gambling.

It seems to me, though, that various Football Associations would act to prevent clubs from taking sponsorship from gambling companies simply because of the threat to the integrity of the sport. I don't know if there have been gambling related soccer scandals, but in the U.S., we have seen gambling scandals in Major League Baseball and point shaving scandals in college basketball. (I'm certain that I've missed some sports that have been afflicted by this.) So it came as a bit of a surprise that gambling advertising was so prevalent in the English game.

[Powdered Water]

All tobacco advertising / sponsorship was banned in the UK (and the rest of the EU?) a couple of years ago, except at point of sale, and an exemption for Formula 1 which lasts another year or two.

That makes sense now - come to think of it, there are other sport which changed sponsers, like I think there's a Snooker competition called Embassy something (sponsered by Embassy tabacco I believe) which changed recently. Now I know why.

I wonder what the most odd sponser is now (for a footie club). I can't think of 1.

[M]

It seems to me, though, that various Football Associations would act to prevent clubs from taking sponsorship from gambling companies simply because of the threat to the integrity of the sport. I don't know if there have been gambling related soccer scandals, but in the U.S., we have seen gambling scandals in Major League Baseball and point shaving scandals in college basketball. (I'm certain that I've missed some sports that have been afflicted by this.) So it came as a bit of a surprise that gambling advertising was so prevalent in the English game.

I think you've answered your own point here. There have been betting scandals in American sports despite a very draconian approach to gambling that simply wouldn't be legal in the UK. There have also been betting scandals in the UK. In the mid-60's a number of players were banned for life, and, more recently, in the late '90's a number of players including Bruce Grobbelaar, were involved with Asian syndicates in 'throwing' games.

So, I really don't think allowing sponsorship by gambling companies makes the slightest bit of difference. Far better to have draconian punishments for players that bet, rather than being rather hypocritical about an industry that brings a lot of interest to sports.

[RichardL]

About 10 years ago Scarborough were sponsored by "Black Death Vodka", and although the sponsorship was allowed to stay, they were told to tone down the logo, which had red blood ripping from the letters.

In 1984 my own Reading were sponsored by local radio station "Radio 210", but were told they couldn't carry the station's logo as it stood as the numbers could be confusing (despite the number 210 clearly not being a shirt number, and it being on the front). I think for a while they were forced to play with a patch sewn over the number until the league relented.

[RichardL]

It seems to me, though, that various Football Associations would act to prevent clubs from taking sponsorship from gambling companies simply because of the threat to the integrity of the sport. I don't know if there have been gambling related soccer scandals, but in the U.S., we have seen gambling scandals in Major League Baseball and point shaving scandals in college basketball. (I'm certain that I've missed some sports that have been afflicted by this.) So it came as a bit of a surprise that gambling advertising was so prevalent in the English game.
I could be wrong, but it strikes me as not so much being about the risk of players betting, but just a dislike of gambing itself. Isn't gambling illegal in many states? One of the reasons we don't have the equivalent of a Las Vegas here is that you can bet pretty much anywhere on virtually anything in a high street betting shop, rather than having to dash off to one part of the country to partake in an 'illicit pursuit'.

[Wide Boy]

Strictly speaking, banning tobacco companies is also a restraint of trade, although the dangers of tobacco are better documented than those of gambling.

It seems to me, though, that various Football Associations would act to prevent clubs from taking sponsorship from gambling companies simply because of the threat to the integrity of the sport. I don't know if there have been gambling related soccer scandals, but in the U.S., we have seen gambling scandals in Major League Baseball and point shaving scandals in college basketball. (I'm certain that I've missed some sports that have been afflicted by this.) So it came as a bit of a surprise that gambling advertising was so prevalent in the English game.

Gambling is very closely connected to many British sports; for many people, a game wouldn't be complete unless they had a bet on it. St James' Park in Newcastle has dozens of bookies' outlets in the stadium, and this is typical of the big grounds.

Betting by players is frowned on. I think that bettin on yourself / team to win is within the rules (while not being approved of) but the big no-no is betting against your team.

The Rugby Football League in England recently suspended two players for betting against their own team.

Many bets are based on spread betting; for example, "buying" or "selling" the total value of the shirt number of all players on the field, or of the scorers, or the time of the quickest throw-in. (There was a phase of teams kicking directly in to touch at the beginning of games - allegedly there were some big wins!)

The more obvious bets are simply on who will win (or a draw) the scoreline and the scorers (especially the first scorer).

The UK government has found that gambling is very difficult to regulate anyway, particularly since the internet became so widespread. Many bookies set up internet-based operations in Gibraltar to escape tax - the government had to plead with them to come back.

[Powdered Water]

Gambling is very closely connected to many British sports; for many people, a game wouldn't be complete unless they had a bet on it. St James' Park in Newcastle has dozens of bookies' outlets in the stadium, and this is typical of the big grounds.


I think another thing to note is that there are some differences between gambling on human performance and gambling on random chances. Having said 'gambling', there seems to be different types of gambling.

Maybe it's a question of "Gambling for the sake of gambling" and "Gambling as a part of the whole enjoyment". But whatever the reason, I think generally people view them somewhat differently and so the tolerance and understanding also differ.

Big casinos (gambling for the sake of gambling) may find it hard to convince some people in the UK, but bookies will always exist as part of society, because I somehow feel that it's a small part of the big thing. It's almost a tradition of sporting events, isn't it. But that's far from saying that "UK has a big casino culture". That's a completely different beast.