The anti gambling lobby have raised complaints about a bookmaker appearing on a television sports show. His contribution has been in the area of predicting the likelihood of each teams chances of winning a game, and this has been expressed in monetary terms. Teams that are not favoured to have a win are depicted at long odds, similar to the odds used in horse racing selections.
This objection seems to be mainly on the grounds of mixing metaphors. What is perfectly acceptable when used in horse racing form takes on a new meaning when applied to the various codes of football. It seems to introduce an invitation to extend gambling by having a bet on the outcome of football games.
What seems to have missed the recognition of the anti gambling lobby - is the fact that having a bet on the results of football games is perfectly legal - and has been for a very long time. What has changed is the form these bets can now take. It is no longer just a bet on a win or a loss. It can be a bet on how many minutes may elapse before the first score is posted, or what member of the team will be the player to achieve that success. A wide variation of circumstances prevail - and new ones are constantly being dreamed up by the betting agencies.
Unfortunately, all forms of sports gambling introduce the opportunity to make money by illegally altering the outcomes. The cricket world has been rocked by accusations of match fixing and there have been similar story's about unusual play combinations in other sports. Usually, participants in events on which betting is allowed are not permitted to place bets on their chosen sport. In racing, a jockey who bets on the outcome of a race faces a long suspension if caught.
The objection to a bookmaker appearing on a sporting programme seems to be a case of double standards. The odds that apply to any event taking place are standard measure of reporting. Even the weather bureau uses them to describe the probability of rain ! What seems to grate is the use of dividends in monetary terms rather than a simple equation of percentage of a hundred.
We seem to be heading into new territory. Perhaps the unstated objection is to mixing a person with an avowed occupation of accepting gambling bets with the commentary team which gives supporters facts on sporting teams and coming matches. Some would see this as encouraging people to place a wager by enhancing the odds of winning money from such a selection.
That ignores the fact that the promotion of gambling is legal. We see advertising constantly from the state lotteries urging us to buy a ticket in the jackpot lottery, and Lotto reminds us that there are millions to be won in it's jackpot draws. If a bookmaker is legally able to accept bets, is there any difference in advertising his availability to the promotion of other forms of gambling ?
The television channel involved has certainly toned down this bookmaker's presence in the face of criticism. It seems that there is a moral line between what is legal and what is socially acceptable when it comes to gambling. One of the " sin " areas where double standards apply !
No comments:
Post a Comment