After criticism on the networks, CazéTV: advertising began to appear with fewer calls integrated into the narration and without incentives for betting in the heat of the game.
Then, suggesting the suspension of this form of advertising, considered abusive.
The decline shows that betting advertising works like a race for revenue: each actor has an incentive to join not only for the money, but also to not give an advantage to their rival, unless public pressure reverses these gains.
For a broadcaster, refusing bets can mean less cash to buy games, hire staff and compete for audiences. For a club, giving up the quota can strengthen its rival, which will have more resources to compete for players and coaches. For a politician, facing the sector means opposing organized companies, with lobbying, contracts and pressure capacity, while the social and electoral reaction is still fragmented.
In this context, even public criticism becomes suspicious of this competitive game: many defenders of CazéTV even treat it as orchestrated by competitors, not as a legitimate reaction to aggressive advertising.
Although the competition benefits from criticism of CazéTv, it is necessary to admit that there is a relevant difference between a brand appearing as a sponsor and a broadcast presenting an “odd” as a chance for enrichment. In the first case, presence is sold, while in the second, we try to transform the anxiety of the game into a financial decision.
In the financial market, by way of comparison, recommendations capable of influencing investment decisions are surrounded by rules, careful with conflicts of interest and cannot be sold with promises of gain or appealing language. Imagine how strange it would be to see an economic analysis on TV being crossed by an invitation to buy a share “now”.
It should be even stranger to see “odds”, bonuses and free bets (free bets, without using your own balance) treated as informal tips during a match. The bet is not a clear investment, but it is linked to a promise of return and still carries the risk of addiction.
Of course, individual (ethical) choices matter, but they are not capable of reorganizing incentives. A broadcaster, club, influencer or politician can refuse money, exposure or support from bets. If they act in isolation, however, they assume private costs while the rest of the sector continues to profit from revenue, audience and influence. Responsible decision making becomes a competitive disadvantage.
Therefore, public reaction is the mechanism that can transform scattered criticism into a reputational, commercial and political cost. The betting sector already operates in an organized manner, with lobbying, contracts, advertising and presence in Congress.
To change the balance, the opposing pressure also needs to gain coordination by, for example, opting for broadcasts with less aggressive advertisements, charging brands that share space with bets, “unfollowing” sponsored influencers and supporting politicians willing to tackle the issue.
Regulation is necessary, both of limits on advertising and of frictions before filing. But it will hardly move forward as long as promoting bets remains a good business and facing them is an isolated cost.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
