Quote from: 1miau on October 31, 2023, 11:36:34 PM

There's a big difference between Ronaldo's "Coca Cola incident" and BenCodie's "Gambling incident".
Ronaldo didn't choose to advertise Coca Cola personally. I don't believe any player of that team choose it because it's a management decision (here UEFA as tournament organizer), which brands get displayed there.
It wasn't Ronaldo's decision that Coca Cola does advertising there.

BenCodie decided to join a gambling campaign solely based on his own decision.

So, completely different from Ronaldo's incident, where the team /organizer made the decision and Ronaldo had no say.

It's often an issue for a team sport.
Players don't have a say, which sponsors will be displayed on their shirts or stadium surroundings because it's a team management decision / tournament organizer decision (here UEFA).
For example, Sebastian Vettel doesn't like the oil industry due to CO2 emissions. But he had to accept that Aramco sponsored Aston Martin's car.
That wasn't Vettel's decision, because it's a team decision.

While for the BenCodie case, BenCodie is the one, who made the call himself to join the campaign and is getting paid for it despite he hates gambling and thinks, it's "unethical".

Firstly I'm sorry for not being able to explain myself clearly. I also know that there is a big difference between these two situations. I just used this image as Ronaldo's incident came to my mind after giving the Coca-Cola example.

The thing I actually want to say is that BenCodie doesn't keep his thoughts to himself. He is writing them openly. I think that the real problem here is the truth of there are managers who are accepting him to the ad campaign of gambling companies despite knowing that BenCodie is talking negatively about gambling websites.

Then let me ask you a question like this: Isn't there any fault of Coca-Cola here if Ronaldo shares an Instagram story every day telling people not to drink Coca-Cola and still he signs a sponsorship deal with Coca-Cola?