Is it time the AFL and clubs include a membership option to "buyout" gambling advertising?

[Mordecai]

The current 'value' of gambling advertising to the AFL can be broken down into two categories:

(1) Direct funding to the AFL: $8m in sponsorship, $40m in bookmaker fees, and $3m for ground signage.
$51m in total.

(2) Direct funding to the AFL and the broadcast sponsor Channel 7: $8m in sponsorship, $40m in bookmaker fees, $3m for ground signage, and $47m to Channel 7 in gambling advertising.
$98m in total.

In 2022 there were 1,190,671 AFL and club members.

The current average price of an Adult club membership is roughly $230.

To cover category (1), each member could pay the "buyout" amount of ($51,000,000/1,190,671) $42.83 ($272.83 for a membership).
To cover category (2), each member could pay the "buyout" amount of ($98,000,000/1,190,671) $82.30 ($312.30 for a membership).

Would you buy the 'sell your soul' membership for the standard $230 or pay a little more to rid the industry of gambling advertising?

Source

 

[Swanks McSwankserton]

One of these years I'll get around to buying a tigs membership and when I do I'd be happy with buying such an option, never been a fan of the gambling adds.

Damn just made me think about an option where you pay for there to be no advertising on the jumpers, might be adding up though.

 

[Kwality]

The current 'value' of gambling advertising to the AFL can be broken down into two categories:

(1) Direct funding to the AFL: $8m in sponsorship, $40m in bookmaker fees, and $3m for ground signage.
$51m in total.

(2) Direct funding to the AFL and the broadcast sponsor Channel 7: $8m in sponsorship, $40m in bookmaker fees, $3m for ground signage, and $47m to Channel 7 in gambling advertising.
$98m in total.

In 2022 there were 1,190,671 AFL and club members.

The current average price of an Adult club membership is roughly $230.

To cover category (1), each member could pay the "buyout" amount of ($51,000,000/1,190,671) $42.83 ($272.83 for a membership).
To cover category (2), each member could pay the "buyout" amount of ($98,000,000/1,190,671) $82.30 ($312.30 for a membership).

Would you buy the 'sell your soul' membership for the standard $230 or pay a little more to rid the industry of gambling advertising?

Source

Start with the clubs that have feasted on $s from gambling. Why should club members that werent at that trough pay anything ?

 

[jwikked]

It's a brilliant question, but I do believe that the vast majority just don't care about the gambling ads.

 

[Underarm]

Start with the clubs that have feasted on $s from gambling. Why should club members that werent at that trough pay anything ?

Every club benefits from Gambling.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Good analysis that has a serious go at actually putting a real number on it.

Gambling is $100m per year to the AFL.

 

[Kwality]

Every club benefits from Gambling.

Only from the AFL funding & over which clubs have no control.
Not all clubs have ever been involved directly in gambling as you would know.

 

[Belnakor]

It's a brilliant question, but I do believe that the vast majority just don't care about the gambling ads.

They do care it’s just they don’t complain enough just like Foxtel commentating games via tv

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Sign me up.

 

[Underarm]

Only from the AFL funding & over which clubs have no control.
Not all clubs have ever been involved directly in gambling as you would know.

Well the OP is just talking about AFL gambling money. Clubs with gambling sponsorships would have to charge extra I guess.

 

[Kwality]

Well the OP is just talking about AFL gambling money. Clubs with gambling sponsorships would have to charge extra I guess.

Expecting club members to pony up is my problem with that proposal. Sure clubs that benefitted, NOT clubs that did not.

 

[My_Username]

Expecting club members to pony up is my problem with that proposal. Sure clubs that benefitted, NOT clubs that did not.

All club shave benefitted.

Yes, even yours.

 

[My_Username]

The current 'value' of gambling advertising to the AFL can be broken down into two categories:

(1) Direct funding to the AFL: $8m in sponsorship, $40m in bookmaker fees, and $3m for ground signage.
$51m in total.

(2) Direct funding to the AFL and the broadcast sponsor Channel 7: $8m in sponsorship, $40m in bookmaker fees, $3m for ground signage, and $47m to Channel 7 in gambling advertising.
$98m in total.

In 2022 there were 1,190,671 AFL and club members.

The current average price of an Adult club membership is roughly $230.

To cover category (1), each member could pay the "buyout" amount of ($51,000,000/1,190,671) $42.83 ($272.83 for a membership).
To cover category (2), each member could pay the "buyout" amount of ($98,000,000/1,190,671) $82.30 ($312.30 for a membership).

Would you buy the 'sell your soul' membership for the standard $230 or pay a little more to rid the industry of gambling advertising?

Source

You missed a bit.

The AFL has commented before that their deal with gambling groups includes an 'information transfer' element, which helps them with integrity checks (do any players/officials/etc gamble on football).

Tell the gambling companies where to go, and this could become a lot more difficult.


nb. I'm not suggesting gambling should be allowed just for this, but it IS a consideration.

 

[Mordecai]

You missed a bit.
O
The AFL has commented before that their deal with gambling groups includes an 'information transfer' element, which helps them with integrity checks (do any players/officials/etc gamble on football).

Tell the gambling companies where to go, and this could become a lot more difficult.


nb. I'm not suggesting gambling should be allowed just for this, but it IS a consideration.

Definitely a consideration. How you quantify it's monetary value I'm not sure.

There was a NYT article the other day discussing season bans for NFL players that were betting on NFL games.

It mentions:

"In Ridley’s case, he used a gambling app to place three parlay bets in November 2021 while he was in Florida and away from his team. Genius Sports, a company hired by the N.F.L. to provide “comprehensive integrity services to monitor betting,” alerted the N.F.L. that a player might have made the bets, triggering a league investigation."

This would be another way of doing things - get a third party agency for your integrity, and not relying on the gambling companies to feed you the data to flag suspicious betting.

 

[My_Username]

Definitely a consideration. How you quantify it's monetary value I'm not sure.

There was a NYT article the other day discussing season bans for NFL players that were betting on NFL games.

It mentions:

"In Ridley’s case, he used a gambling app to place three parlay bets in November 2021 while he was in Florida and away from his team. Genius Sports, a company hired by the N.F.L. to provide “comprehensive integrity services to monitor betting,” alerted the N.F.L. that a player might have made the bets, triggering a league investigation."

This would be another way of doing things - get a third party agency for your integrity, and not relying on the gambling companies to feed you the data to flag suspicious betting.

3rd party would still need to get the info from somewhere, and the obvious source is the gambling companies.

So you pay 3rd party $2M for integrity services, and they pay $1M to the gambling companies for the infrmation...(number made up of course).

a) You've quantified the monetary value.
b) Instead of taking money from gambling, you're now paying them...I'm not sure that's morally/ethically better.
c) Even with all that, it's now less lucrative for the gambling orgs to stay on the good side of the AFL, so they have less incentive to help, and thus are more likely to 'just happen' to forget to pass on all the info.

 

[Mordecai]

3rd party would still need to get the info from somewhere, and the obvious source is the gambling companies.

So you pay 3rd party $2M for integrity services, and they pay $1M to the gambling companies for the infrmation...(number made up of course).

a) You've quantified the monetary value.
b) Instead of taking money from gambling, you're now paying them...I'm not sure that's morally/ethically better.
c) Even with all that, it's now less lucrative for the gambling orgs to stay on the good side of the AFL, so they have less incentive to help, and thus are more likely to 'just happen' to forget to pass on all the info.

Definitely favor paying more and being at arm's length from gambling companies for their data though. There's no getting around this one unfortunately. There is a cost to trying to maintain integrity of the sport.

Ideally it is instead legislated and gambling companies must turnover the data in order to get licensed.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Would the players take a paycut for the same purpose?

 

[Mordecai]

Would the players take a paycut for the same purpose?

There are roughly 800 players in the AFL:

90,000,000/800 = $112,500 pay cut per player.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

There are roughly 800 players in the AFL:

90,000,000/800 = $112,500 pay cut per player.

They only receive 23% of revenue (or something like that)

So it’s be close to $30k

 

[The 747]

There are roughly 800 players in the AFL:

90,000,000/800 = $112,500 pay cut per player.

This assumes that it is a net loss and no other businesses come in to fill that revenue hole.

 

[Mordecai]

They only receive 23% of revenue (or something like that)

So it’s be close to $30k

I've just used category 2 divided by the number of players.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

Degenerate gambler here.

Gambling is necessary because it is the only way to make games between all of your pissant, minnow clubs remotely interesting.

The only way I can bring myself to watch a North Melbourne game is if there is good chance that I lose the house and my wife divorces me afterwards.