By In the face of social normalization, this article goes against the mainstream and presents four objections as to why this form of gambling is not as beneficial for the integrity of sports.
By Sandro Angulo Rincón
With a high probability of being correct, I can wager that “bet” is the most popular Anglo-Saxon word of our time. You find it on uniforms, TV and internet commercials, stadium advertisements, and billboards on the streets, and it is repeated by athletes, former athletes, and coaches to be seen and heard by children, young people, and adults without any prohibition.
According to the portal Etymoline, the origin (etymology) of “bet” is unknown, but some hypotheses suggest that in 1590 it was a commitment to mutual action among minor criminals. By the mid-19th century, it had become part of American slang, particularly in California, to convey the sense of being “sure” (you bet). It might be an abbreviation of “abet” from the obsolete expression “beet” (to make good), related to “better” (to improve), or it could derive from the sense of “bait” in “abet” (hook, lure, an expression for comparing deceptive things). By 1796, the term was understood as “that which is wagered.”
Online sports betting has experienced an unprecedented boom over the last 25 years, driven by the liberalization of laws, easy access to mobile and online platforms, bold marketing strategies, and the continuous expansion of gaming options. According to Zion Market Research, the industry will be worth $155 billion by 2024, distributed among multinational betting operators, sports organizations, media companies, governments, and audiences. There are too many lucrative stakeholders for regulations to be proposed based on the harms caused by this industry, don’t you think?
At Agon&Areté, we present four objections that challenge the normalization and perceived harmlessness of these gambling activities in society.
The first objection is that sports betting promotes what researchers term “problem gambling,” which can trigger addictions, family conflicts, physical deterioration, and various mental disorders.
The second objection is that predatory marketing (as critics call it) exploits the lack of state regulation to associate the attributes of sports with the development of “harmless” betting, leading to gambling addictions among minors.
The third objection is that there is a symbiosis between sports betting and corruption, affecting the credibility of the game’s development and outcome.
The fourth objection is that these bets undermine the ideals of elite athletic competition by “hyper-commercializing” and transforming the ways spectators engage with and value sports.
(In this first installment, Agon&Areté will address the first two objections.
First Objection: “Problem Gambling”
The argument here is that sports leagues and clubs should not be complicit with betting companies because gambling is proven to be personally and socially destructive. According to the study by Evaristo Barrera and María Josefa Vázquez, authors of the article “The Rise of Online Sports Betting, Its Fallout, and the Onset of a New Profile in Gambling Disorder: Young People,” gambling disorder dates back to 1975 when scientific articles on the subject were published. In 1980, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association included it as a pathology.
In recent European research, such as those conducted by Florian Rehbein and his colleagues in “Prevalence of Internet Gaming Disorder in German Adolescents: Diagnostic Contribution of the Nine DSM-5 Criteria in a State-wide Representative Sample” and Nancy Petry & Angels González in “Internet Gambling in Problem Gambling College Students,” it is asserted that gamblers are affected by:
1. Increased debts incurred through personal loans and internet microcredits;
2. Isolation and difficulties in having a support network;
3. Loss of concentration at work, poor academic performance, and absenteeism from school and work;
4. Depression, anxiety, sadness, mood swings, irritability, hyper-analysis, despair, weight gain or loss, feelings of guilt, and low self-esteem.
In the article by Oludayo Tade, Chinedu Ernest Dinne, and Oludare Ibikunle George, titled “I Have Lost More Than I Have Won: Sports Betting and Bettors’ Experiences in Nigeria,” the authors argue that in this country of 230 million inhabitants, 60 million risk their wealth and health in this industry. The authors collect stories from gamblers who have won money to pay their children’s tuition and many others who testify to the problems that sports betting has caused them. Here are some of their accounts:
“I must be honest with you. At first, when I started, I thought it was a bed of roses, but as I continued, I found it has been detrimental to my health, my relationship, my pocket, and even my well-being.”
“My wife and I manage the income that comes into the business together. She documents if I have debts or she asks to borrow something. But for some time now, she no longer gives me money because she knows I return without it when I go out.”
“And how does the money go? I lose. These days, I have been a loser. It’s been over a month since I won a significant amount.”
Despite the risks and difficulties, online sports betting has become normalized. The media and predatory marketing bear responsibility for the acceptance of this form of gambling as a lesser evil among others that proliferate on the streets and the internet, such as poker and casinos. This is possible by strategies designed to hook habitual and non-habitual bettors. Here are some described by Nerilee Hing and her colleagues in “A Bad Bet for Sports Fans: The Case for Ending the ‘Gamblification’ of Sport”:
1. **The Continuous Expansion of Betting Options or Micro-Betting**: It is not enough to secure a favorable outcome at the end of a competition; one can bet on the number of fouls in a basketball final, the number of unforced errors in a tennis match, and an endless array of contingencies across an ever-widening range of sports, scheduled practically throughout the entire year.
2. **Smartphone Betting**: These bets integrate into a person’s daily activities, such as during breaks, at work, while commuting, or socializing.
3. **The Use of Electronic Money**: This facilitates impulsive betting and more lavish spending, as electronic transactions are quick and create the sensation of being “less painful” when losing compared to cash.
In this activity, there are far more losers than winners; otherwise, it would not be viable for the betting houses.
Second Objection: “Harmless” Betting for Adults and Minors
Other strategies by the media and marketing are aimed at normalizing gambling as a pleasurable and innocuous activity. This was illustrated by a Colombian taxi driver who spoke to the author of this article during an informal conversation about his son’s habit of betting money through betting houses. When asked if he was not afraid his son would become addicted, he replied, “He’s already hooked, but I prefer he gets addicted to this game rather than casinos.”
The concept of social normalization, proposed by the French philosopher Michel Foucault (1926-1984), examines how institutions and dominant discourses contribute to normalizing behaviors and thoughts of individuals considered different and deviant. In the context of betting, the concept can be interpreted as a behavior once considered unusual, marginal, or even unacceptable, becoming integrated into everyday life and accepted by a significant community.
Second Objection: “Harmless” Betting for Adults and Minors
Flexibility in-laws and marketing have influenced the tolerance of sports betting. In the United States, for example, this business was legalized at the federal level following the Supreme Court’s decision in May 2018 that overturned the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (previously allowed only in Nevada, Delaware, Montana, and Oregon).
Meanwhile, marketing skillfully conveys to the public that the qualities of sports (health, knowledge, tactics, improvement, socialization, enjoyment) are what one experiences in online sports betting. In academia, this strategy is conceived as a Meaning Transfer Model (MTM), advocated by Canadian cultural anthropologist Grant McCracken, wherein advertising transfers the positive attributes of one object (sports) to another (betting) so that, through repetition of the message, it drives the final consumer’s purchase (the bettor).
In this advertising context, “betting on sports is not a matter of chance but of knowledge.” Therefore, the taxi driver’s son mentioned earlier is convinced that knowing the statistics and the names of players and teams from remote football leagues makes him a successful gambler. A study led by Hibai López, titled “Controlling the Illusion of Control: A Grounded Theory of Sports Betting Advertising in the UK,” revealed that the ten Spanish sports journalists with the most followers on Twitter had sponsorship agreements with this industry or had their own betting platforms. The underlying assumption in this strategy is that these reporters/influencers can normalize the use of betting sites for both adults and minors and provide insider information to their audiences to help them choose the winning team or player.
“Betting on sports is not addictive but a collective enjoyment activity” because addictions predominantly occur in solitary and secretive environments such as alcohol and drug consumption. However, Mathew Lamont, Nerilee Hing, and Peter Vitartas in “Affective Response to Gambling Promotions During Televised Sport: A Qualitative Analysis” argue that this is a mistaken perception. They have demonstrated that permissiveness among peers and watching games in the company of others are associated with more impulsive and excessive betting.
“Betting on sports is a form of self-improvement,” or so claim the athletes who have overcome difficulties and triumphed. Now, they sell their image to help betting houses thrive. Notably, these athletes, who have earned significant money through their sports performance and are admired for their impeccable social behavior, succumb to the temptation of earning extra income by promoting bets, fully aware of the harm they cause to their fans.
Creating the harmless image of gambling is accompanied by the free distribution of welcome bonuses that encourage frequent play to make them effective and mitigate the impression of losing one’s own money. Additionally, the possibility of changing the choice of team or player in real-time—albeit with reduced winnings—produces an immersive effect in the competition.
These messages are primarily targeted at young men, professionals, and tech-savvy individuals, exploiting the attributes of masculinity such as being risk-takers, analytical, loyal to their team, and brave. Additionally, this group is sold the idea that they control the game, supposedly relying on their reasoning rather than their emotions.
All of this occurs in plain view of minors who watch athletic events during family-friendly hours (mornings and afternoons) and are thus exposed to an endless barrage of advertisements promoting betting (bet-bet-bet), without any state regulation. Future problem gamblers? No, the gamblers of the present. This was documented by the prominent Mexican YouTuber “Luisito Comunica” (Luis Arturo Villar Sudek) when he visited Santa Cruz Island in Colombia (see video excerpt).
Finally, it is essential to note that many countries allow the existence of this business because they receive tax revenues, which, in the opinion of their governments, are intended to be invested in the well-being of citizens. However, it is worth debating whether these revenues offset the costs to governments in reducing the conflicts and mental disorders that online sports betting generates or if it would be better to incentivize other industries that protect fans and promote the integrity of sports.
Share your thoughts on this article and follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.
1 Comment