Over the past year I have been carrying out research with my Spanish colleague – Dr. Hibai Lopez-Gonzalez – into problematic sports betting and sports betting advertising which has already produced a number of papers (see ‘Further reading’ below) and with many more to come. One of the issues we have faced in contextualising our work is that there is no such concept as sport-related problem gambling in prevalence surveys because problem gambling is assessed on the totality of gambling experiences rather than a single activity. For instance, in the three British Gambling Prevalence Surveys (BGPSs) conducted since 1999, sport-related gambling is subsumed within a number of different gambling forms: ‘football pools and fixed odds coupons’, ‘private betting’, and ‘other events with a bookmaker’. The 2010 BGPS (which I co-authored) included ‘sports betting’ as a category, along with ‘football pools’ (no coupons), ‘private betting’, ‘spread betting’ (which can include both sports or financial trading). In addition, the 2010 BGPS added a new category under online gambling activities to include ‘any online betting’. More recently, the Health Survey for England also introduced a new category: ‘gambling on sports events (not online)’.
Despite these limitations, some evidence can be inferred from gambling activity by gambling type. In 2014, Heather Wardle and her colleagues combined the gambling data from the Health Survey for England and the Scottish Health Survey. They reported that among adult males aged 16 years and over during a 12-month period, 5% participated in offline football pools, 8% engaged in online betting (although no indication was made about whether this only involved sport), and 8% engaged in sports events (not online). The categories were not mutually exclusive so an overlapping of respondents across categories was very likely. A similar rate was found in South Australia in a 2013 report the Social Research Centre with those betting on sports over the past year accounting for 6.1% of the adult population, an increase from the 4.2% reported in 2005.
In Spain, the Spanish Gambling Commission (Direccion General de Ordenacion del Juego [DGOJ] reported that 1.5% of the adult (male and female) population had gambled online on sports in 2015. This is a significantly lower proportion compared with the British data, although the methodological variations cannot be underestimated. Spanish data also shows that, among those who have gambled online on a single gambling type only, betting on sports is the more prevalent form with up to 66% of those adults.
In France, the data on the topic only focuses on those who gamble rather than examining the general population of gamblers and non-gamblers. Among online gamblers, Dr. Jean-Michel Costes and colleagues reported in a 2011 issue of the journal Tendances that 35.1% had bet on sports during the last 12 months. In another French study by Costes and colleagues published in a 2016 issue of the Journal of Gambling Studies, sports betting represented 16.4% of the gambling cohort, although again, the representativeness of sports betting behaviour among the general gambling and non-gambling population could not be determined.
Due to the aforementioned shortcomings in the definition of sport-related gambling, there is only fragmented empirical evidence concerning the impact of sports-related problem gambling behaviour. For instance, in 2014, Dr. Nerilee Hing noted that clinical reports indicate that treatment seeking for sports-related problem gambling had grown in Australia. In British Columbia (Canada), a 2014 survey by Malatests & Associates for the Ministry of Finance reported that 23.6% of at-risk or problem gamblers had gambled on sports either offline or online. A smaller proportion (16.2%) was found in the Spanish population screened in the national gambling DGOJ survey, except this subgroup was entirely composed of online bettors.
In a 2011 study published in International Gambling Studies with patients from a pathological gambling unit within a community hospital in Barcelona, Dr. Susana Jiménez-Murcia and her colleagues found that among those who had developed the disorder gambling online only (as opposed to those who gamble both online/offline or offline only), just over half (50.8%) were sport bettors. Those who gambled online only (on any activity) and those that only gambled online on sports events represented a small minority of the total number of problem gamblers. Overall, there is relatively little research on this sub-group of gamblers therefore I and others will be monitoring the evolution of this trend as the online gambling population grows.
(Note: This blog was co-written with input from Dr. Hibai Lopez-Gonzalez).
Dr. Mark Griffiths, Professor of Behavioural Addiction, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK
Costes, J-M, Kairouz, S., Eroukmanoff, V., et al. (2016) Gambling patterns and problems of gamblers on licensed and unlicensed sites in France. Journal of Gambling Studies 32(1), 79–91.
Costes, J., Pousset, M., Eroukmanoff, V., et al. (2010). Gambling prevalence and practices in France in 2010. Tendances, 77, 1–8.
DGOJ (2016a) Análisis del perfil del jugador online. Madrid: Ministerio de Hacienda y Administraciones Públicas.
DGOJ (2016b) Estudio sobre prevalencia, comportamiento y características de los usuarios de juegos de azar en España 2015. Madrid: Ministerio de Hacienda y Administraciones Públicas.
Hing, N. (2014) Sports betting and advertising (AGRC Discussion Paper No. 4). Melbourne: Australian Gambling Research Centre.
Jiménez-Murcia S, Stinchfield R, Fernández-Aranda F, et al. (2011) Are online pathological gamblers different from non-online pathological gamblers on demographics, gambling problem severity, psychopathology and personality characteristics? International Gambling Studies 11(3), 325–337.
Lopez-Gonzalez, H., Estevez, A. & Griffiths, M.D. (2017). Marketing and advertising online sports betting: A problem gambling perspective. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, in press.
Lopez-Gonzalez, H. & Griffiths, M.D. (2016). Is European online gambling regulation adequately addressing in-play betting advertising? Gaming Law Review and Economics, 20, 495-503.
Lopez-Gonzalez, H. & Griffiths, M.D. (2017). Understanding the convergence of online sports betting markets. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, in press.
Lopez-Gonzalez, H. & Griffiths, M.D. (2017). ‘Cashing out’ in sports betting: Implications for problem gambling and regulation. Gaming Law Review and Economics, in press.
Malatests & Associates Ltd (2014). 2014 British Columbia Problem Gambling Prevalence Study. Victoria, Canada: Gaming policy and enforcement branch, Ministry of Finance.
The Social Research Centre (2013) Gambling prevalence in South Australia. Adelaide, Australia: Office for problem gambling. Available from: http://phys.org/news/2012-03-lung-doctors-respiratory-diseases-worsen.html.
Wardle, H., Moody. A., Spence, S., Orford, J., Volberg, R., Jotangia, D., Griffiths, M.D., Hussey, D. & Dobbie, F. (2011). British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2010. London: The Stationery Office.
Wardle H, Seabury C, Ahmed H, et al. (2014) Gambling behaviour in England & Scotland. Findings from the health survey for England 2012 and Scottish health survey 2012. London: NatCen Social Research.
Wardle, H., Sproston, K., Orford, J., Erens, B., Griffiths, M.D., Constantine, R. & Pigott, S. (2007). The British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2007. London: The Stationery Office.
It is often claimed by marketeers that remote gambling makes commercial sense (i.e., the combining of gambling and remote technologies such as the internet and mobile phones into one convenient package). Mobile phone betting and gambling not only provides convenience and flexibility, but perhaps more importantly from a gaming operator’s perspective, provides gambling on the move, whenever and wherever. Since it is somewhat unnatural to always be near a computer, it could be argued that mobile phones are an ideal medium for betting and gambling. Whenever gamblers have a few minutes to spare (at the airport, commuting to work, waiting in a queue, etc.), they can occupy themselves by gambling.
Conventional wisdom says that two things have the power to drive any new consumer technology – pornography and gambling. These activities helped satellite and cable television, video, and the Internet and provide adult entertainment in a convenient and guilt-free environment. Betting via mobile phone is no different. Along with pornography, gambling should have little trouble reaching profitability – especially if this is combined with sports events. Sports interest is huge. There are thousands of communities (including those online). The most successful of those communities will look to ‘mobilize’ and then ‘monetize’.
The mobile phone industry has grown rapidly in the last decade. Market research highlights that mobile phone revenues from mobile gambling and gaming is increasingly rapidly. Although mobile gaming revenues are increasing, it is estimated that less than 2% of mobile industry revenue is generated by gaming and gambling. It is generally thought that lottery gambling will make most money for mobile gambling operators because governments are generally less censorious about lotteries than other forms of gambling. They are also easy to play and relatively low cost compared to other types of gambling.
To some extent, the majority of gamblers are risk-takers to begin with. Therefore, they may be less cautious with new forms of technology. For every day gamblers, mobile phones are ideal for bet placing, and gamblers will be able to check on their bets, and place new ones. Furthermore, it is anonymous, and can provide immediate gratification, anytime, anywhere. Anonymity and secrecy may be potential benefits of mobile gambling as for a lot of people there is still stigma attached to gambling in places like betting shops and casinos. Mobile sports betting is also well suited to personal (i.e., one-to-one) gambling, where users bet against each other rather than bookies. Online betting exchanges demonstrate that people bet on anything and everything to do with sport (with each other).
Although mobile phone technology has improved exponentially over the last decade, it is unlikely that mobile phone graphics and technology will ever truly compete with Internet web browsers (although I am happy to be proved wrong). Intuitively, mobile phone gambling is best suited for sports and event betting. With mobile phone betting, all that is required is real-time access to data about the event to be bet on (e.g., a horse race, a football match), and the ability to make a bet in a timely fashion.
These basic requirements are, of course, easily be provided by the current generation of mobile phones, and the appropriate software. The placing of the bet is not the driving motivation in event wagering. Since being the spectator is what sports fans are really interested in, the sports gambler does not need fulfillment from the process of gambling. People betting on sports will use mobile phones because they are easy, convenient and take no time to boot up. Once they have their sports book registered as a bookmark on their phone, they can access it and place a bet within a very short space of time.
As I have noted in previous blogs, all forms of gambling lie on a chance-skill dimension. Neither games of pure skill nor games of pure chance are particularly attractive to sports bettors. Games of chance (like lotteries) offer no significant edge to sports bettors and are unlikely to be gambled upon. Serious punters gravitate towards types of gambling that provide an appropriate mix of chance and skill. This is one of the reasons why sports betting – and in particular activities like horse race betting – is so popular for gamblers. The edge available in horse race gambling can be sufficient to fully support professional gamblers as they bring their wide range of knowledge to the activity. There is the complex interplay of factors that contributes to the final outcome of the race. However, in the mobile sports betting market, it is likely to be football that will make the big money for sports betting agencies.
Consider the following scenario. A betting service that knows where you are and/or what you are doing has the capacity to suggest something context-related to the mobile user to bet on. For instance, if the mobile phone user bought a ticket for a soccer match using an electronic service, this service may share this information with a betting company. If in that match the referee gives a penalty for one team, a person’s mobile could ring and give the user an opportunity (on screen) to bet whether or not the penalty will be scored. On this type of service, the mobile phone user will only have to decide if they want to bet, and if they do, the amount of money. Two clicks and the bet will be placed. Context, timeliness, simplicity, and above all user involvement look like enough to convince also people that never entered a bet-shop.
Many football clubs are turning themselves into powerful media companies. They have their own digital TV channel and signed up a host of big-name technology partners. Such companies will get the chance to develop co-branded mobile services with the club. This offers users access to content similar to their website (receiving real-time scores and team news via SMS). While watching matches, users will be able to view statistics, player biographies, and order merchandise. Such mobility will facilitate an increase in ‘personalized’ gambling where bettors gamble against each other, rather than the house.
Gambling will (if it is not already) become part of the match day experience. A typical scenario might involve a £10 bet with a friend on a weekend football match. The gambler can text their friend via SMS and log on to the betting service to make their gamble. If the friend accepts, the gambler has got the chance to win (or lose). Football clubs will get a share of the profits from the service. Clubs are keen to get fans using branded mobile devices where they can simply hit a ‘bet’ button and place a wager with the club’s mobile phone partner.
As with all new forms of technological gambling, ease of use is paramount to success. Mobile phones have become more user-friendly. Pricing structures are also important. Internet access and mobile phone use that is paid for by the minute produces very different customer behavior to those that have one off payment fees (e.g., unlimited use and access for a monthly rental fee). The latter payment structure facilitates leisure use, as punters would not be worried that for every extra minute they are online, they are increasing the size of their phone bills. For me, mobile sports betting is where the future of mobile gambling is likely to be.
Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK
Griffiths, M.D. (2004). Mobile phone gambling: preparing for take off. World Online Gambling Law Report, 8(3), 6-7.
Griffiths, M.D. (2005). The psychosocial impact of mobile phone gambling. World Online Gambling Law Report, 4 (10), 14-15.
Griffiths, M.D. (2010). The psychology of sports betting: What should affiliates know? i-Gaming Business Affiliate, August/September, 46-47.
Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Mobile sportsbetting: A view from the social sciences. i-Gaming Business, 69, 64-65.
Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Technological trends remote gambling: A psychological perspective. i-Gaming Business, 71, 39-40.
Griffiths, M.D. (2013). Adolescent mobile phone addiction: A cause for concern? Education and Health, 31, 76-78.
Griffiths, M.D. (2007). Mobile phone gambling. In D. Taniar (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mobile Computing and Commerce (pp.553-556). Pennsylvania: Information Science Reference.
Earlier this month, ex-England footballer Kenny Sansom made the news after he was found homeless sleeping on a park bench following his self-admitted addictions to both gambling and alcohol. Gambling by footballers is nothing new of course. Back in 2006, the media lapped up the story that Wayne Rooney allegedly ran up gambling debts of £700,000 with the Goldchip betting company. At the time, the Government’s (then) Sports Minister, Richard Caborn, warned the England team footballers not to bet on World Cup matches endorsing the decision by football’s world governing body (FIFA) to outlaw players betting on the tournament. Today’s blog briefly looks at the issue of gambling addiction amongst footballers and whether it is an issue that clubs must take seriously.
So why do professional footballers gamble? Gambling and football have always been inextricably linked. Whether it is the football pools, a punt on who will win the FA Cup final, or a spread bet on the number of yellow cards to be handed out during the next World Cup, gamblers love betting on the outcome of football matches. But there are also good psychological reasons that encourage top players to gamble – particularly if looked at from the player’s perspective.
It is the night before a big match. Premiership players are confined to staying in a hotel. No sex. No alcohol. No junk food. Basically, no access to all the things they love. To pass time, footballers may watch television, play cards, or play a video game believing these are ‘healthier’ for them. The difficulty in detecting gambling addictions is likely to be one factor in its growth over other forms of addiction – especially as many players are more health-conscious and the testing for alcohol and drugs is now more rigorous. However, any of these ‘healthier’ activities when taken to excess can cause problems. England goalkeeper David James once claimed his loss of form was because of his round-the-clock video game playing. In short, the top players are very well paid and inevitably have lots of time on their hands. By their own admission, ex-Arsenal and England players like Paul Merson and Tony Adams lost millions of pounds gambling and regularly attended Gamblers Anonymous along with treatment for other addictions to alcohol and cocaine. Paul Merson claims to have lost £7 million to gambling and cocaine, and was still having severe gambling problems over a decade after his football career had ended.
It would also seem to be the case that there is a psychosocial subculture of gambling by footballers. The ex-England striker Kevin Phillips claimed that when he was part of Kevin Keegan’s England squad (as a Sunderland player in the 1990s), he was alienated by the other players for not taking part with the other players in the team’s pre-match gambling activities. Phillips’ ex-strike partner at Sunderland, Niall Quinn, knows only too well the inherent dangers of gambling. While playing for Arsenal he regularly lost his whole week’s wages at the bookmakers inside an hour of getting it. Whilst he was never truly out of control, he did have to re-mortgage his flat to pay off gambling debts. Quinn says he was lucky not to be paid the kind of wages players get today as he would have lost more. Ex-footballer (and now TV and radio football pundit) Steve Claridge claimed in his autobiography to have blown £1m on gambling, while the ex-Northern Ireland winger Keith Gillespie became addicted after placing bets for team-mates.
More recently, there have been a number of high profile cases of top footballers with gambling problems. These include the West Ham and Stoke winger Matthew Etherington and ex-England striker David Bentley who was reported to be placing up to 100 bets a day on everything from horses and greyhounds to online poker and bingo. Another high profile case to hit the headlines was Icelandic ex-Chelsea player Eidur Gudjohnsen who was alleged to be in £6 million in debt because of his gambling despite a £3 million-a-year wages at his current club Monaco. While he was at Manchester United, the Dutch striker Ruud Van Nistelrooy said that “obscene” wages were fuelling constant gambling by other players in the team.
I am often asked by the press to comment on why footballers gamble and whether they are more susceptible to gambling addiction. One player I was asked to comment on was ex-England striker Michael Owen (whose friend Stephen Smith – somewhat ironically – ran the company that Wayne Rooney ran up his debts with). It was clear that to me that Owen did not have a gambling problem and could easily afford to lose the amounts he was alleged to have lost. However, it could be argued that he and players like Wayne Rooney are role models for many teenagers. As a psychologist I have some concerns about the messages that high profile footballers send out about gambling to vulnerable individuals. Teenagers are less likely than adults to be able to make informed choices because they are young and impressionable. Footballers who gamble are unconsciously giving out the message to adolescents that gambling is something that goes hand-in-hand with being a top footballer.
Tony Adams alleged that every football club in England has a problem with gambling addiction. This was one of the primary reasons why set up his own charity (Sporting Chance) to help footballers with addiction problems. At present, this appears to be the main source of help for footballers who are problem gamblers, although Gamblers Anonymous also appears to be another popular outlet for help. Press reports from the mid-2000s indicated that up to 60 Premiership football players were being treated for gambling addiction. Adams alleged that some players – despite being on vast wages – even stole from their children’s savings to cover their losses. He said footballers that were gambling addicts “lose their self-respect and before you know where they are, they are nicking money out of their kids’ savings to have a bet. It is something about which clubs need to be aware. It is difficult to trace – but it can cause a lot of damage.” Peter Kay, the Chief Executive of the Sporting Chance clinic claims that footballer’s passion for football predisposes them to gambling problems. He said:
“If you have the kind of driven, obsessive character that it takes to become a professional footballer, with that tunnel-vision, then you are predisposed. I have not come across a football club where gambling does not play a part in the players’ lives. If a player is dropped from the team, this can often lead to depression and a craving for the buzz of football – sometimes found in gambling. It is acceptable to gamble. There have always been famous gamblers in football and for most it is enjoyable. But for around 10 per cent it is an addiction”.
Although the English Football Association has strict rules on gambling by footballers, these are not a deterrent to gamble and as outlined above, there are many reasons why footballers may gamble to excess compared to other less ‘healthy’ behaviours like excessive drinking or drug taking. It is a shame that addictions to drugs and alcohol tend to generate more sympathy among the general public as many people view gambling as a self-inflicted vice. But gambling to excess can be just as destructive because of the huge financial consequences. Therefore, time rich and money rich young footballers need to be educated about the potential downsides of excessive and/or high stakes gambling. Through the work of the Sporting Chance clinic, this is beginning to happen, but as footballers’ wages continue to increase, gambling is one activity that may place an increasing role in the lives of the players.
Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK
Adams, T. and Ridley, I. (1999), Addicted. London: Harper Collins.
BBC Online News (2007). Etherington in gambling admission. February 24. Located at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/w/west_ham_utd/6392549.stm (Last accessed December 10, 2009).
Burt, J. (2003). Adams charity claims gambling addiction is rife. The Independent, January 16. Located at; http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/adams-charity-claims-gambling-addiction-is-rife-601846.html (Last accessed December 10, 2009).
Chaytor, R. (2008), Paul Merson gambles away £300,000 home. Daily Mirror, November 1. Located at: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/01/11/paul-merson-gambles-away-300-000-home-115875-20281696/ (Last accessed December 10, 2009).
Claridge, S. & Ridley, I. (2000). Tales From The Boot Camps. London: Orion.
Griffiths, M.D. (2006). All in the game. Inside Edge: The Gambling Magazine, July (Issue 28), p. 67.
Griffiths, M.D. (2010). Gambling addiction among footballers: causes and consequences. World Sports Law Report, 8(3), 14-16.
Menezes, J. de (2013). Former England star Kenny Sansom admits he’s ‘homeless, a drunk and sleeping on a park bench’. The Independent, August 1. Located at: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/former-england-star-kenny-sansom-admits-hes-homeless-a-drunk-and-sleeping-on-a-park-bench-8741512.html
Merson, P. (1996). Rock Bottom. London: Bloomsbury.
Peake, A. (2009). Eidur down £6M: Gambling has ace Gudjohnsen owing two banks. The Sun, December 3, p.25.
Winter, H. (2008). David Bentley had to fight gambling addiction. Daily Telegraph, April 10. Located at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/henrywinter/2296852/David-Bentley-had-to-fight-gambling-addiction.html (Last accessed December 10, 2009).