Quote from: Gozie51 on January 06, 2024, 11:17:09 AM

I think the major reason for such role is to avoid match fixing. Imagine where the one of the two clubs is yet to qualify and they are to play each other, so what will happen in such instance, of course match fixing.

As per my research, there are 36 clubs involved in the Champions League. So the chance for both Clubs (which is owned by a single owner) to head to head on the finals can still be slim, unless only if there is already a corruption that applies right from the start.

Quote from: satscraper on Today at 02:35:32 AM

Yeah, that would open the door to the gambling corruption and the person who owns two clubs could make a boatload of money ^{(I have my personal distaste for such kind of people)} .

They can make a lot of money but I think other people who betted on the correct team can also make too. This is still not reason though to allow them but it's always better if the game is being played fairly because each bettors will also have a fair chance of winning, even though or especially they made a solid analysis.

Quote from: satscraper on Today at 02:35:32 AM

Sure both team wouldn't be neglected but , it would signal the end of sport. Therefore, I consider the rule to be correct and fair.

Wouldn't be neglected or not restricted? But he already said that there is a rule against it. I'm with it despite of what I said earlier that the chance for both clubs that is owned by a single owner to head to head on the finals is only less since there are also lots of clubs that are participating, and we are also talking about champions league here, so the clubs that are involved are what we can say highly skilled for them to reach this far. Corruption is not a new thing and people are like used to them already, so there is no way that this signals the end of sports or sports betting.