The NHL embracing sports gambling was a major mistake

[Lshap]

Except in the case of gambling, there are concrete and measurable negative outcomes. This isn’t a matter of opinion, you can draw a direct line between cause and effect.

No argument on the measurable negative outcomes of gambling. Of course there are other things to argue over: How much advertising space do we allocate to a product that's legal but potentially harmful? What language are they allowed to use? What's their liability for addictions and related harm caused by their product (does the disclaimer "Gamble responsibly" count for anything)?

EDIT: I recognize we've entered new territory with online gambling. It's unlike other products advertised during hockey games. You don't need to move from your couch or worry about budget – anyone can get the product immediately with a click. That's what makes it so insidious. But how do you impose limits? Would you be okay with an outright ban?

 

[MadLuke]

No, they were most certainly wrong.

The idea that not a single church burned in Norway had the weakest link to metal scene influence being certainly wrong....

The issue is because violent people are attracted to violent music and double-blind study are obviously impossible to do, correlation-causation will never be separated, but seem impossible to say they certainly wrong. Same for violent video games.

The issues was, because for a lot of factor (maybe lead in the environment, testosterone going down, we do not know) violence went down in general massively in the 80s-90s, it can have hidden the consequence of anything that became popular during those times.

Example Studies:​

• Anderson & Carnagey (2003): This study examined the effects of violent music on aggressive thoughts and feelings. It found that exposure to violent lyrics increased aggressive thoughts and feelings, but did not necessarily lead to violent behavior.
• Rubin, West, & Mitchell (2001): This research explored the association between music preference and aggressive behavior in adolescents. It found that those who preferred heavy metal or rap music were more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior, but this was also influenced by other factors such as peer influence and personality.
• Fischer & Greitemeyer (2006): This study found that exposure to violent song lyrics increased aggressive thoughts and hostile feelings, but it did not lead to increased aggressive behavior.

A parent being worry, with the type of friends group their child would have being deep in the metal scene vs the classical music scene, were not certainly wrong and we will maybe never know one way or the other. And I am not sure how one would ever go to be certain either way.

 

[Silky Johnson]

I see moral and social issues as two different things. I have no moral objection to you enjoying an occasional bet. I hope you have no moral objection to me enjoying an occasional Bourbon. I don't consider gambling and alcohol to be immoral, however both can become social issues if unchecked or abused. That's how I parse the two definitions - does that make sense?

I see the infiltration of gambling into hockey the same way. The product isn't immoral, however the way gambling is becoming interwoven with the game is forcing us to watch hockey differently. There used to be a clear boundary between hockey and ads. The whistle blew, the game stopped, then you saw ads for cars, booze, cigarettes, etc.. Now, unlike those other products, gambling is blurring the boundaries and making itself part of the game in real-time.

It's like that example I gave earlier – imagine alcohol companies turning hockey into a drinking game, telling you to drink a shot of their brand to match each shot on net, and two shots each time your team scores. That's a rough idea of what gambling ads seem like to me.

That sounds like an amazing drinking game. If I were 20 years younger I would definitely try it.

Agree to disagree. I am fundamentally classical liberal bordering on libertarian. You are not. We will not likely come to agreement.

 

[Ianturnedbull]

Except in the case of gambling, there are concrete and measurable negative outcomes. This isn’t a matter of opinion, you can draw a direct line between cause and effect.

Except in the case of gambling, there are concrete and measurable negative outcomes. This isn’t a matter of opinion, you can draw a direct line between cause and effect.

Ok, but the first point and the premise of this thread has to do with Jeff Marek and his ethics.
Are we actually drawing a direct line between Jeff Marek's cause and effect. Like normally he would never do anything unethical, but gambling made him do it?

I actually explained why it's a bad comparison. One of those things involves evidence while the other not only did not involve evidence, but has since shown to have been a baseless moral panic. I don't agree because it's a bad comparison, not the other way around.

No. The logic is air-tight. Stop telling yourself there's 1 way to think and that's your way.

 

[Golden_Jet]

. Stop telling yourself there's 1 way to think and that's your way.

Pot meet kettle lol

 

[Ianturnedbull]

Pot meet kettle lol

Not really. I don't go around saying your I don't agree on the basis that you're wrong. An opinion is offered, and here is why I don't agree.

Perhaps my opinion of Marek is shocking and too heavy handed for people. So be it.

 

[KrisLetAngry]

My biggest issue is the gambling ads are in the analysis of the game. I do not think the show between periods should be even allowed to touch on gambling.

It's everywhere it's making billionaire and millionaires money. I am unsure if anything will change. I will take between whistles ads and ads after the game but the fact is I don't even want to watch the shows between breaks because I get more ads shoved down my throat. I walk away from the TV at this point (great for me).

 

[Silky Johnson]

Participating in a discussion about something isn't even a mere implication of desire to control the actions of others. You started this "don't tell me what to do" thing in response to no one. Some of us simply don't like the idea of sports gambling advertisement during sporting events, and we should be able to make our moral/ethical case if we want to without being made to seem unreasonable by claims or implications that we are trying to control someone else's life. Others are just annoyed by it, and they aren't telling you what to do either. The defiance in the face of no adversity is weird.

Plenty of people suggesting it's wrong and should be banned. Including yourself in one of the below quotes. You relate gambling to other addictive and harmful activities and say that the advertising should be banned.

I did however misspeak. I should have said "don't tell me what I can and cannot do" to be more precise.

Do it was in defiance of adversity. That adversity is people like you who want to tell me what I can and can't do.

I don't watch sports with my kids cause of the gambling ads. Giving every American access to a casino in their pocket has probably ruined multiple families. The entire thing is disgusting and shameless. Another example of a culture degrading and embracing vice in the quest for profits and cheap thrills in the place of genuine achievement.

Hurts the integrity of the game + hurts the integrity of the watching experience. I would never put my families money in the hands of a hockey game and people pushing others to do so are being unethical.

Blame Kevin Waugh, a dipshit former sports reporter (it's always the sports journalists too, those dumb f***s) from CTV working for the CPC that allowed this

Those involved should be giving to charity as atonement.

Sports in general embracing sports gambling is dangerous and dumb.

IMHO

Why not? They banned cigarette commercials decades ago.

It isn't about fixing those issues. It's about not playing an active role in making those issues worse.

Good post OP.

The league is a Ponzi Scheme being propped up by predatory advertising of gambling. They sold their souls for the almighty dollar and it's the fans who suffer as a result. Instead of highlights, we get gambling reports, instead of mediocre talking heads we get money lines (amazing they found something worse than Sportsnet panels to fill the time), and instead of hockey we get endless gambling commercials.

Rather than thinking about how to actually grow the game and attract fans, the league has decided that it will grow by attaching itself to the easiest money it can find in expansion and gambling. Gambling is probably shrinking fan interest if anything, and a new team is maybe 3% growth every couple of years. We've got guys in full body armour cannoning around the ice doing incredible tricks with the puck, precision, and insane athleticism, and somehow we can't sell that to people effectively? The easy money is every bit as addictive as the gambling itself, and the NHL has completely lost the plot in becoming about dollars instead of a functional hockey league.

Gambling will always happen and that's okay, but it belongs in the margins, not front and centre where it will devour everything in its path, including the league.

The problem with advertising addictive substances or activities is that a successful advertising campaign inevitably leads people to addiction. The question is where to draw the line. Cigarettes are already not advertised. Alcohol advertisement permeates not just sports culture, but North American culture in general. Alcoholism is more dangerous than gambling. Should those ads be banned like cigarette ads? If we care about the health of other people over money, yes.

 

[majormajor]

My argument is primarily with people making this a moral issue. The NHL can a should be able to advertise gambling and the people should be free to make the choice to engage or not.

I don't think they should be.

My brother asked for help with rent and then blew all the money betting on hockey. He's now living in his car. He has kids. That's just one example, I'm sure many other people have similar experiences where the individual choice ended up ruining the lives of others.

Freedom to make choices as an absolute principle only makes sense in a vacuum where your choices don't constantly curtail the range of choices for people around you. It is a moral issue.

 

[Silky Johnson]

I don't think they should be.

My brother asked for help with rent and then blew all the money betting on hockey. He's now living in his car. He has kids. That's just one example, I'm sure many other people have similar experiences where the individual choice ended up ruining the lives of others.

Freedom to make choices as an absolute principle only makes sense in a vacuum where your choices don't constantly curtail the range of choices for people around you. It is a moral issue.

I'm sorry that happened to your brother and his family.

Unfortunately, that is on him and there are many ways to ruin your life for people with predisposition for addiction. Legal or not.

I support increasing support for people who have these problems and their loved ones.

However, you can never nerf the world enough and even if you try, people will find a way

Your brothers faults as tragic as they may be, are not a reason to limit the rest of our freedom.

 

[Derailed75]

I see moral and social issues as two different things. I have no moral objection to you enjoying an occasional bet. I hope you have no moral objection to me enjoying an occasional Bourbon. I don't consider gambling and alcohol to be immoral, however both can become social issues if unchecked or abused. That's how I parse the two definitions - does that make sense?

I see the infiltration of gambling into hockey the same way. The product isn't immoral, however the way gambling is becoming interwoven with the game is forcing us to watch hockey differently. There used to be a clear boundary between hockey and ads. The whistle blew, the game stopped, then you saw ads for cars, booze, cigarettes, etc.. Now, unlike those other products, gambling is blurring the boundaries and making itself part of the game in real-time.

It's like that example I gave earlier – imagine alcohol companies turning hockey into a drinking game, telling you to drink a shot of their brand to match each shot on net, and two shots each time your team scores. That's a rough idea of what gambling ads seem like to me.

They do. Whats the vodka commercial where a bunch of friend are watch a game and "their team" scores and they all solute? Its the same thing.

I don't think they should be.

My brother asked for help with rent and then blew all the money betting on hockey. He's now living in his car. He has kids. That's just one example, I'm sure many other people have similar experiences where the individual choice ended up ruining the lives of others.

Freedom to make choices as an absolute principle only makes sense in a vacuum where your choices don't constantly curtail the range of choices for people around you. It is a moral issue.

But thats not the NHL'S fault its your brothers fault.

 

[Ianturnedbull]

I don't think they should be.

My brother asked for help with rent and then blew all the money betting on hockey. He's now living in his car. He has kids. That's just one example, I'm sure many other people have similar experiences where the individual choice ended up ruining the lives of others.

Freedom to make choices as an absolute principle only makes sense in a vacuum where your choices don't constantly curtail the range of choices for people around you. It is a moral issue.

This is tragic. I would hate to see anyone fall down like this.

I hope he gets help.

My cousin became a crackhead after years of alcohol addiction, bad lifestyle choices, immaturity, etc. He got help, but just kept falling. Now he's dead.

With all due respect:

Addiction is very serious, but I can't go blaming the LCBO, Jim Beam, Molson, etc. My cousin made poor choices, and he never straightened out. He lost his job, wife, and then fell even further.

I guess my only wish is that others will learn from his tragedy.

 

[majormajor]

I'm sorry that happened to your brother and his family.

Unfortunately, that is on him

And on his kids, on the kid's mother, on myself and others who now need to step in.

But thats not the NHL'S fault its your brothers fault.

I'm not really talking about fault here. It just sucks. Blame whoever you want. I'm talking about how gambling affects a lot more people than just the fool making the bets.

 

[JPT]

The idea that not a single church burned in Norway had the weakest link to metal scene influence being certainly wrong....

The issue is because violent people are attracted to violent music and double-blind study are obviously impossible to do, correlation-causation will never be separated, but seem impossible to say they certainly wrong. Same for violent video games.

The issues was, because for a lot of factor (maybe lead in the environment, testosterone going down, we do not know) violence went down in general massively in the 80s-90s, it can have hidden the consequence of anything that became popular during those times.

Example Studies:​

• Anderson & Carnagey (2003): This study examined the effects of violent music on aggressive thoughts and feelings. It found that exposure to violent lyrics increased aggressive thoughts and feelings, but did not necessarily lead to violent behavior.
• Rubin, West, & Mitchell (2001): This research explored the association between music preference and aggressive behavior in adolescents. It found that those who preferred heavy metal or rap music were more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior, but this was also influenced by other factors such as peer influence and personality.
• Fischer & Greitemeyer (2006): This study found that exposure to violent song lyrics increased aggressive thoughts and hostile feelings, but it did not lead to increased aggressive behavior.

A parent being worry, with the type of friends group their child would have being deep in the metal scene vs the classical music scene, were not certainly wrong and we will maybe never know one way or the other. And I am not sure how one would ever go to be certain either way.

This is all I'm going to say about this since it's off topic, and I only addressed it to say it was a bad comparison.

The last church burning that wasn't an isolated event was nearly 30 years ago, and that wave of burnings was done by people who started a genre of music, not by people who were influenced by it. The genre was an outgrowth of their pre-existing tendencies. Bringing that up doesn't show anything about how such music leads people to commit violent acts to any significant degree, much less to a degree that neccesitated the panic mentioned (that wave of black metal church burnings also took place well after the PMRC hearings). So yeah, it's wrong to say that Norway church burnings were influenced by music. They were acts of arson committed by a few people who wanted to prove their Satanic bona-fides, which was also the purpose of the Satanic black metal they began to create. The music was influenced by the people who committed the violent acts.

The studies you cited, as stated by you in citing them, did not prove a link between music and behavior. They also came out well after the moral panic that was used in the comparison. Despite having no evidence to back up the claims they were making, those who were crusaders against so-called "porn rock" made assertions of fact. They were wrong. It was not factual that the kinds of music they were talking about were causing the problems they claimed.

Even the issue you mention isn't that people are influenced by this kind of music. Rather, you claim already violent people are attracted to it. What influenced them to be violent before finding "violent music"?

The PMRC representatives were making claims of fact about the influence of certain types of music (noticeably not talking about a genre like country, which is full of violent and misogynistic imagery, but also happened to be a major economic driver in the state Al Gore represented at the time) on the behavior of children. They were wrong to make those claims. That's why it's a bad comparison. Even if you think the moral/ethical arguments against gambling advertisements go too far, there is evidence that 1) gambling causes societal problems, and 2) advertising is based in effective methods of persuasion and influences behavior. Comparing those making such arguments to a baseless moral panic in the 1980s is feeble.

 

[Derailed75]

And on his kids, on the kid's mother, on myself and others who now need to step in.



I'm not really talking about fault here. It just sucks. Blame whoever you want. I'm talking about how gambling affects a lot more people than just the fool making the bets.

Yes but the lack of restraint your brother has should not cause infringement on anyone else's life.

As said above I'm very sorry you have a close connection with the dark side of gambling. Thats really truly sucks and I hope your brother and his family can find their way out of the darkness.

His mistakes shouldn't keep me from being able to gamble or keep the NHL from selling ads to gambling companies.

My mons side of the family had some really massive alcoholics that cause tons of undo stress on her family.

I drink but I drink responsibly their mistakes should not be a reason to take away my freedom.

 

[JPT]

Plenty of people suggesting it's wrong and should be banned. Including yourself in one of the below quotes. You relate gambling to other addictive and harmful activities and say that the advertising should be banned.

I did however misspeak. I should have said "don't tell me what I can and cannot do" to be more precise.

Do it was in defiance of adversity. That adversity is people like you who want to tell me what I can and can't do.

I absolutely did not say that. You are either misinterpreting what I said, or you are purposefully misrepresenting what I said. First of all, it was a rhetorical post. Second, I was speaking of alcohol ads and consistency in regulation. Tobacco ads were banned/highly regulated in a way that another dangerous vice (alcohol) has not been. The comparison was of the addictive nature of those vices. I didn't tell you or anyone else what to do. You simply made that assumption for whatever reason.

Edit: reading the other posts you quoted, literally none of them called for outright banning gambling ads. One asked "why not?" and referenced cigarette ad bans, but that post was in response to a question about if alcohol ads should be banned. I'm starting to think you didn't read any of the posts very carefully before deciding the posters were trying to tell people what they can and can't do.

 

[LeafGrief]

Plenty of people suggesting it's wrong and should be banned. Including yourself in one of the below quotes. You relate gambling to other addictive and harmful activities and say that the advertising should be banned.

I did however misspeak. I should have said "don't tell me what I can and cannot do" to be more precise.

Do it was in defiance of adversity. That adversity is people like you who want to tell me what I can and can't do.

I don't think you're going to get very far with the "don't tell me what do do" when the conversation at hand is almost entirely about advertising, versus gambling itself. Advertising is by both design and nature, intrusive. It is beamed directly into my living room while I am as close to a captive audience as possible, especially if it's happening during the play. People gambling on their own time doesn't effect me, media that I'm consuming does. I think most liberal-minded people will agree that people can gamble if they want to, but only the more hardened libertarians are going to agree that restricting advertising is stepping on the snake. The rest of us are willing to trade some freedoms for security, and the freedom of our nations' businesses for some security in terms of shielding from an overwhelming quantity of vices being advertised, is a trade long since completed. There's absolutely an order of magnitude that goes along with this, nobody ever cared about casino or lottery ads for the last few decades.

I also think you are mistakenly assuming that such a reduction would necessarily come from legal action or law enforcement. Consumers voicing their displeasure, which my post would certainly count as, is intended to let the business entities concerned know that I am upset with the current state of affairs. Do I not have some form of recourse in between outright ignoring the issue and a boycott? Can I tell the NHL that I hate their new stupid advertising strategy because it's intrusive, distracting, repetitive, and irrelevant to me? I'm not even concerned about the morality here, that's an entirely separate argument, which I make in other posts, the post you quoted is entirely about how the NHL's short term business strategy will lead to long term failure. I'd figure the libertarians would appreciate that sort of post. According to the law they can advertise all the gambling want, I think it will bite the NHL in the ass in the end and I have my own streaming cancellation emails to prove it.

So when I write a post saying that this advertising strategy is a sign that the NHL has made a terrible business choice, and that a strategy involving the money from gambling ads will devour the league, I don't think "don't tell me what to do" is an effective counter. By all means, the NHL can alienate its non-libertarian fans all it likes, but if enough eventually leave the gambling dollars will go chase them somewhere else and then the NHL will be left with no revenue whatsoever. No fans, no advertisers, just a husk and everybody loses. This is a business case and I'm just a free consultant. Consumers are within their own liberties to ask for their products to not come with externalities that they find objectionable for any reason.

I'm sorry that happened to your brother and his family.

Unfortunately, that is on him and there are many ways to ruin your life for people with predisposition for addiction. Legal or not.

I support increasing support for people who have these problems and their loved ones.

However, you can never nerf the world enough and even if you try, people will find a way

Your brothers faults as tragic as they may be, are not a reason to limit the rest of our freedom.

I'm inclined towards this side of the moral argument, but at the end of the day, I just do not think the freedom to advertise is all that important, mostly because advertising is in and of itself intrusive. Your right to be intrusive is in direct conflict with my right to be left alone, and I just want to be left alone to watch the dang hockey game, Jesse Pinkman.

 

[squashmaple]

Yes but the lack of restraint your brother has should not cause infringement on anyone else's life.

As said above I'm very sorry you have a close connection with the dark side of gambling. Thats really truly sucks and I hope your brother and his family can find their way out of the darkness.

His mistakes shouldn't keep me from being able to gamble or keep the NHL from selling ads to gambling companies.

My mons side of the family had some really massive alcoholics that cause tons of undo stress on her family.

I drink but I drink responsibly their mistakes should not be a reason to take away my freedom.

There is a gulf of difference between "ban all gambling period" and "stop shoving gambling ads down our throats every four minutes during broadcasts and displaying odds and spreads prominently on the screen at all times." It's deeply disingenuous to read something talking about the latter and claim they're arguing for the former and want to "take away your freedom."

Legalize gambling, whatever. But it doesn't need to be talked about before we even discuss who the goaltenders are in a game, nor do multiple minutes every pregame, intermission report, and postgame need to be dedicated to bets in Whatever Sportsbook like the progress on a trifecta of "Jack Hughes goal, 2+ points for Mercer, no goals against Schmid."

 

[Oilslick941611]

f*** sport gambling and f*** all the talk about it during broadcasts

 

[Derailed75]

There is a gulf of difference between "ban all gambling period" and "stop shoving gambling ads down our throats every four minutes during broadcasts and displaying odds and spreads prominently on the screen at all times." It's deeply disingenuous to read something talking about the latter and claim they're arguing for the former and want to "take away your freedom."

Legalize gambling, whatever. But it doesn't need to be talked about before we even discuss who the goaltenders are in a game, nor do multiple minutes every pregame, intermission report, and postgame need to be dedicated to bets in Whatever Sportsbook like the progress on a trifecta of "Jack Hughes goal, 2+ points for Mercer, no goals against Schmid."

And how is that different than lets say commercials for deodorant, boxed meals, processed meats?

/he ad space is going to sell to the highest bidder, just because you don't t like what is being advertised doesn't mean the NHL shouldn't be allowed to sell them that time

 

[MadLuke]

The studies you cited, as stated by you in citing them, did not prove a link between music and behavior. They also came out well after the moral panic that was used in the comparison. Despite having no evidence to back up the claims they were making, those who were crusaders against so-called "porn rock" made assertions of fact. They were wrong. It was not factual that the kinds of music they were talking about were causing the problems they claimed.

Well obviously, because it is not something you can do science (you cannot take 2100 child randomly, make 700 of them listen to Mozart never exposed to them, 700 violent (by violent screaming lyrics and heavy sound) and a control group) and have more importantly their friends group being the type that do listen to Mozart vs metal.

It is not something you can really prove and do solid study about, even something that should much easier and clearer the impact of removing lead from gasoline and the environment in general is not solid and heavily disputed. This is asking stuff of science that science cannot do, they can only find good correlation between violence and listening to X, but as violent people can be more likely to listen X, how can you know how the correlation-causation play out... It is just normal to have no evidence when it is impossible to do science about something, and we will never know if they were wrong or not.

The little science we can do (short term effect of watching violent movie, playing violent game, listening to metal) do show a clear effect on people, leaving the question perfectly open if there is something to it. Was it overblown by some, obviously yes, was there nothing there, impossible to know.

A big part of a parent worry will be the friend group it creates here, even if pot the substances would have in reality negative effect, could be worrisome to have a child into it in an era where it was signaling something about the type of friends it meant to have.

 

[Golden_Jet]

And how is that different than lets say commercials for deodorant, boxed meals, processed meats?

/he ad space is going to sell to the highest bidder, just because you don't t like what is being advertised doesn't mean the NHL shouldn't be allowed to sell them that time

They advertise deodorant while the game is being played?
Don’t give a crap about the 3 commercials each period, or a commercial during intermission.
You’ve misread the room, it’s while the game is being played, that’s super annoying, not the commercials,

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

When the nhl locked out the players in the name of “partnership”, stole at least 1 billion dollars from them in the process and denied fans an entire season of play, the took on the moral & ethical obligation to grow revenues.

That’s their end of the Partnership, raise the HRR every year. If they don’t, they fail in their obligation to their player Partners (as they coined the term to white wash their PR spin).

Gambling is a mega source of revenue for the league, they would be derelict in their fiduciary duty to not capitalize on this stream of income.

That all said, it’s not their problem if people don’t have self control of their free will. Gambling has been part of humanity since the cave man. Its not the NhL’s fault or responsibility to solve.

Hey most fans begged for a cap and now the big market teams are getting fatter and fatter at the expense of the fans and the product.

So be it, most of you are getting what you wished for!

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

They advertise deodorant while the game is being played?
Don’t give a crap about the 3 commercials each period, or a commercial during intermission.
You’ve misread the room, it’s while the game is being played, that’s super annoying, not the commercials,

The nhl sells ad space on every corner of their asset.

Their entire mission is to sell their product which is not hockey, their product is “advertising channels” and the the incremental income from their arena real estate schemes. Hockey is simply the vehicle which they use to promote these income streams. Much like McDonalds uses Big Mac & Fries to grow their real product “real estate”. But I digress.

If they could sell an arena oxygen access fee, they must do it. That was their promise to the players, to maximize revenue.

So the fact they sell media space during game play is a non issue. If they could put “Honda” on the referees face, they would and should. Indeed they MUST.

One day they will, they just haven’t done enough focus groups yet to determine the size of the font.

This is the system fans begged for.

 

[Butt Ox]

That adversity is people like you who want to tell me what I can and can't do.

Yeah. All I did was convey what the Prophet Muhammad had to say about gambling. You do you.