Media Review


  • Banned

    FI conducting a media review in the new year with regards to racism.

    Personally I feel these stories SHOULD stand.

    Discuss...


  • Banned

    0_1577100859387_upload-8020ac00-3498-4ea7-bfd2-a54dc7ee1e2d



  • I agree, as long as the stories that are included are victim related rather than if say Suarez won for abusing Evra that time



  • @Gregolocky said in Media Review:

    I agree, as long as the stories that are included are victim related rather than if say Suarez won for abusing Evra that time

    I suppose the angle FI are worried about is that people can profit when a player is racially abused and that can be quickly span into bad press for FI. I can understand that, but also feel MB should reflect what the media are talking about, and if that's a player being racially abused then so be it. The problem is racism in football, not so much FI picking up on those stories.

    Hopefully one day there are no racist MB stories being generated as it's been removed from football.



  • Good that they have pre warned us and its not an imminent change that will affect anyone today, they have not waded in today just because of a few vocal non Rudiger holders getting upset on twitter.



  • Will they also remove stories about horrific injuries too then?



  • MB is so badly flawed in other areas, such as which publications it covers, how they generate scores & how foreign players are under represented I believe a total first principles revamp is required as it's currently totally unfit for purpose. I'd prefer that MB was abolished entirely as it has little to do with football knowledge but accept that is unlikely so I think the best way forward is to include all stories regarding a player - otherwise where do you draw the line? & who decides?

    If Pogba can win for his haircuts (not footballing related), Grealish for being punched by a fan (condones violence?) Vardy & Rooney for their wives having a twitter spat (ruled out iirc?) then racist abuse whilst totally unacceptable is still relevant to MB scores. I fully understand that some things are both distasteful & unacceptable (CR7/Neymar rape allegations) & have some sympathy for the argument of airbrushing them out of MB scores but whilst ever MB exists it ought to reflect as full a breadth of stories as possible IMO. The only stories withdrawn ought to be incorrect allocations (Marcelo getting Bielsa stories) or those relating to retired players such as Crouch, Robben etc.

    I understand that MB fills a gap when football isn't on but think the way it is being reduced in importance whilst FI give more emphasis to footballing knowledge & performance related dividends is the correct directions for the platform to pursue.


  • Banned

    If it was me, I would allow EVERY story, regardless.



  • Part of me thinks that the racism stories should be included as should everything else, but to an on looker it'd look absolutely terrible if people are benefiting financially because someone has been racially abused. On that basis I probably side with the fact that none of the racism stories should be included



  • @Westy I don't think the injury stories should be removed because they are different to racism which is a crime.

    If they start removing injury stories then where could that lead too? The removal of other on field stuff that is deemed as negative? De Gea almost won mb yesterday for his howler, should that be removed because its negative stuff?

    Eventually we could be left with extremely skewed media.

    I think when people buy for MB they buy a player because he has a very high profile, unless they're doing a 'big story' flip like I've dabbled in. Therefore I agree with @Gregolocky that racism stories should be counted but the perpetrator should not be credited

    I'm absolutely positive ppl have bought sterling because he has become a spokesman for anti racism. What's wrong with that? Nothing if u ask me. But a blanket ban on racism stories would negatively affect his price.

    Furthermore I agree with @Yellow . MB should reflect what the media are talking about, otherwise what does it become? In short, a load of bollocks.


  • Banned

    @ChazFI123 newspapers benefit greatly from racism stories. as do all their workers families.
    There are plenty of instances where people profit from it,



  • @MickTurbo just thinking with injuries again it's chance to make money out of a player's misery...they need to find a consistent approach to this. I personally am not saying they should- I think all media should count and be scored as it is, stop changing the rules mid season.



  • Its a difficult one. I dont think anyone should benefit financially from racism. It should be highlighted as a major issue and shouldnt be censored but we as gamblers shouldnt be able to benefit by effectively placing bets on it being a major story in the media.

    They need do the same with any stories involving crime as its got to be either all or nothing otherwise it becomes subjective.

    Its not good for the platform from a moral standpoint but I understand why some might feel it highlights the problem and something has to be done about it but we shouldnt be allowed to place bets on it



  • @MrWh1te I'm sure some very extreme person may come out and suggest that someone could purchase a load of shares in a player that they are going to watch on the Saturday, racially abuse him at the game and watch the MB stories roll. I really don't know what I think is the best course of action to take, but whatever is decided it need's to be consistent and a blanket approach



  • These stories should not stand. In no way shape or form should a player share price have any element of racism built into it nor should any winnings in form of dividends.

    Victim or not does not make it ok, dont think any victim would be happy knowing other people prosper from an act committed against them.



  • @Riley's-Liegemen said in Media Review:

    These stories should not stand. In no way shape or form should a player share price have any element of racism built into it nor should any winnings in form of dividends.

    Victim or not does not make it ok, dont think any victim would be happy knowing other people prosper from an act committed against them.

    So where do you draw the line?

    A recent story that has just been picked up:

    'Chelsea star Willian calls for bans after alleged Antonio Rudiger racism'.

    Should that story count?



  • @Yellow I agree with yellow. It sounds from the statement that FI are worried about how this looks in the media. I suppose its part of the problem a niche product like FI creates. No other betting platform (to my knowledge) provides a market that would allow people to profit via racism. I also think that theres a major difference between racism (which is a crime and all of us agree shouldnt belong anywhere near a football pitch) and a player suffering a Gomes esque injury which is very much part of the game. In a side note, all of us want FI to expand to other countries, saying that FI users can profit via racist incidents would be a good argument by anti-betting lobby's in those new countries against FI. FI will always have to put their reputation first so I’d imagine this review will lead to the majority if articles related to racism being banned. I’d of thought they will still allow articles related to anti-racism work to stand.



  • @Yellow thats the difficult part. I would have no issue where a player is speaking out to stop it like Sterling has done a lot of but any crime or stories of abuse should not stand. Id hate the media to brand FI as a place you can place bets on racism, rape and other crimes.

    Gambling already gets a bad rep if it then appears to have no morals on the face of it either then the platform will really suffer



  • @Westy yeh I suspected that probably wasnt your personal view. I just think it opens a can of worms. I mean in the past people would buy pogba as a long term hold, predicting that he would return more mb dividends than anyone else. FI have butchered MB to a point where myself and probably many others will no longer buy an expensive player purely for MB so it's kind of become a bonus if your player wins it. Beyond that I view MB purely as an opportunity for flipping. If a player gets a horrendous injury I will predict a bit of MB. If hes suitably cheap, I'll view him as a viable flip. It's just a prediction, the same as the old pogba scenario.

    Too much censorship, weeding out anything that could be deemed unsavoury would not be helpful in my view.

    Perpetrators of racism....yes.
    suspected rapists....yes.
    bereavement (afobe)...yes.
    Other scenarios...yes. Here I'm thinking about things like check tote dying on the pitch, or when Wilson Palacios' brother was taken hostage.

    But censoring injuries is the first step on a slippery slope. Next would be arguments with fans (xhaka), spats with managers (pogba), red cards, VAR disallowed goals.

    Edit: I think what I'm saying is that censorship of MB should only happen/be necessary in very exceptional circumstances. Unfortunately, a player being racially abused is not a very exceptional circumstance, but a player being racially abused by a player listed on the index probably would be very exceptional. Therefore it would be a very exceptional circumstance for FI to have to step in to prevent a player winning MB for perpetrating racist abuse, but in such a circumstance I think it would be wholly necessary. The victim I think should be credited because that is 'news'. Yes the perpetrator is also 'news' but the victim winning mb is much less unsavoury.



  • @Yellow said in Media Review:

    @Riley's-Liegemen said in Media Review:

    These stories should not stand. In no way shape or form should a player share price have any element of racism built into it nor should any winnings in form of dividends.

    Victim or not does not make it ok, dont think any victim would be happy knowing other people prosper from an act committed against them.

    So where do you draw the line?

    A recent story that has just been picked up:

    'Chelsea star Willian calls for bans after alleged Antonio Rudiger racism'.

    Should that story count?

    Definitely not. Whilst it is good to make a stand the only reason to make a stand is because there are victims and we should not have a possibility of profiting from any case where there is a victim of crime. That is where to draw the line.

    Not just racism but crime for example Ozil. He suffered a horrible crime that was probably bloody scary for him and his family but it's ok for us to profit from MB because he was the victim of crime?


Log in to reply