0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/down_dis.png)
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
$300m in sponsorship at risk as booze bans loom
By Steve Lewis and Ben Packham
July 17, 2009 12:00am
PREMIER sporting codes would be stripped of up to $300 million a year in alcohol sponsorship under a radical blueprint for fighting disease and increasing life expectancy.
The National Preventative Health Task Force, handpicked by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, has also called for an end to alcohol advertising on the internet and in youth magazines.
Under the shake-up household names such as Bundaberg Rum, VB and Tooheys beer would disappear from TV screens and sporting arenas.
Iain Payten: Sport's $300 million hangover
It would rob Cricket Australia, the AFL, National Rugby League and Australian Rugby Union of a massive revenue stream.
And it would pit the Rudd Government against the powerful TV networks, who stand to lose lucrative alcohol-related advertising.
The Daily Telegraph can reveal the call to ban alcohol sponsorship of sport and cultural events is a key recommendation of the National Preventative Health Task Force.
The task force's report contains a suite of reforms aimed at reducing the influence of alcohol, particularly on young people.
Editorial: Balancing the benefits of sport sponsorship
The report also encourages the use of healthier foods and exercise.
But its recommendations will trigger a major backlash from sporting groups, the alcohol sector and media firms.
In its landmark report the task force called for more stringent food labelling and a potential ban on junk food advertising on TV.
It backed away from supporting so-called "traffic light" labelling - which offers shoppers a simple red, amber and green light system outlining sugar, fat and sodium levels.
The blueprint for a healthier Australia is one of a trio of key health reform documents - all under consideration by the Government.
A spokeswoman for Health Minister Nicola Roxon last night declined to comment on the top secret report. She said the Minister was "considering all the recommendations" before the report was publicly released.
In what would be a major threat to sporting tradition, the task force is urging the Government to phase out alcohol advertising for live broadcasts. But it said this should be done over time to allow sporting bodies to attract other sources of sponsorship.
With alcohol-related illness costing the nation an estimated $16 billion a year, the task force is urging a raft of hard-hitting policy reforms
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...001021,00.html
---------- Post added at 10:00 ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 ----------
Sport's $300 million hangover
By Iain Payten
July 17, 2009 12:00am
ON FACE value banning alcohol sponsorship in sport is a good idea. There's no disputing alcohol abuse is a problem spreading steadily across all levels of society.
Binge drinking is so bad on the Kings Cross streets most of the junkies have moved out. It's too dangerous for them.
So let's not kid ourselves - anything that can help reduce the damage of the demon drink must be considered.
Given their almost symbiotic relationship in Australia, booze in sport is a good place to start.
Much like the shift in attitudes that accompanied the prohibition of tobacco sponsorship and advertising in sport two decades ago, a total ban of alcohol sponsorship would no doubt have a positive impact.
The question that must be asked, however, is whether sport - and, ironically, healthy living - would take such a blow that a ban would end up causing more problems than it fixed?
Sound far-fetched? Maybe not
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...001030,00.html
Moral police. Wasnt cricket sponsored by Benson and Hedges for years then they thought kiddies might start using said product and gave them the arse. Then nasty beverage companies step in to replace them..
Wtf, i follow cricket and would not wash my dog in VB if i had one.
Bullshit personified. We live in a democracy and id suggest 95% of us know our arse from our elbow and make decisions according.
the punters friend..... stick with me and you will be wearing
just ban ads, alcohol and ciggies....and gambling. then create a federal law forcing everyone to go to a christian church on sundays.
"12 Years aSupporter" starring the #SeaOfBlue
If Gerry didnt go dry for july,this would never have happened
However it can't be denied that the elimination of tobacco advertising has seen a massive reduction in the take up of the product. This has huge savings for the taxpayer through the reduction of treatment costs in the health sector.
I think the alcohol ban has merit, but here's the catch - the Federal Government should undertake financial modelling to see what the overall saving would be. This should include not only reductions in health, but also law and order, domestic violence etc.
From these savings, the government should commit a substantial % back into a sponsorship fund for all the sports to access. This may even end up being a better outcome for the sporting bodies than they have now.
[YOUTUBE]EIo6LRDgSoY[/YOUTUBE]
Who are they kidding... not even dueling banjos will deliver all minds together...
It's called Responsibilty. Too much of society seems unwilling to take responsibilty for when they bugger up. Is getting rid of Alcohol sponsorship in Sport going to stop people going out on a weekend and writing themselves off? Is it going to stop people drinking to much and starting fights? Is it going to stop alcohol abuse?
No
Like TLH called it, it is the moral police tyring to step in. Apparently this idea is the brain child of Stephen Fielding, Senator for Family First (I read other articles regarding this months ago)
What are you going on about, Jargs? Stephen Fielding doesn't exist. There is no incontravertible proof of his existence. Sheesh, can't believe you of all people have bought into that whole "there is a Stephen Fielding" cult.
I like the VB adsThey make me laugh. They certainly don't make me drink the stuff, though.
We should be banning Zoot reviews, not VB ads.
Success is not final, failure is not fatal:
it is the courage to continue that counts.
- Winston Churchill
Ban Tasks Forces'
"Bloody oath we did!"
Nathan Sharpe, Legend.
Do you have any figures on the saving to the health sector? I know that in the smoking debate it can be difficult to tell truth from spin (from both sides), but I was under the impression that eliminating smoking actually cost the tax-payer.
Lung cancer and emphysema are relatively quick deaths compared to, say, Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. The burden on the health sector from old people is far greater, per head, than that from smokers.