[ElProlactin]

> ...because tobacco advertising is banned.

Except that it isn't: https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-indus...

And let's not talk about how the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement had the perverse effect of making states financially dependent on tobacco sales. The annual payouts fluctuate based on cigarette shipment volumes so states want tobacco sales to continue. If tobacco sales stop, the states stop getting checks.

Most of the revenue goes to general fund deficits, infrastructure development, etc., not tobacco prevention and healthcare. And a bunch of states even securitized their future settlement payout revenue so that they could get money immediately.

[toast0]

> Except that it isn't

Your link includes bans on tv, transit, billboards, sponsorships, tobacco branding on non-tobacco items, etc.

Yes, there are a few venues where tobacco advertising is still permitted, but they can't sponsor a soccer team.

[ElProlactin]

> ...but they can't sponsor a soccer team.

And? Tobacco companies spend more than $8 billion/year on marketing in the US. Advertising is not banned, and unless you think these billion-dollar companies (that states perversely depend on for revenue) are run by idiots, that money is producing ROI.

[toast0]

The topic is banning certain types of sponsors from soccer teams. Someone said it's unamerican, but tobacco is an example of a banned sponsor for soccer teams. Gambling could just as easily be banned from sponsoring sports.

[ElProlactin]

Did you even read the article?

> Despite the front-of-shirt prohibition, gambling brands are still permitted to maintain a visual presence in the Premier League through shirt sleeve sponsorships or training kit branding, as demonstrated by Betano's new deals.