Photo by Shaun Botterill/Getty Images

Rangers fans amongst those criticising SPFL for "irresponsible" partnership

Rangers fans have been reacting to the news that Glen’s Vodka will be a new partner of the SPFL after a deal between the two was announced.

The Scottish spirit company has teamed up with the under-fire members’ body as they look to boost revenue in an otherwise difficult season at Hampden.

The new deal will run until 2023 and gives Glen’s Vodka, and owners the Loch Lomond group, the exclusive presenting rights for the Player and Manager of the Month awards [SPFL].

Whilst SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster hailed the deal as “an exciting partnership”, Rangers fans have been a little more critical.

The SPFL are also not exactly flavour of the month at Ibrox and both Rangers and their supporters have a salty taste in their mouth about the overpaid governance of Scotland’s national game.

This new deal with Glen’s Vodka – which isn’t exactly a welcome endorsement of woke culture in Scottish football given the nation’s well-established issue with the demon drink – has been the source of much comment from fans across Scotland.

For many, the adoption of a potent alcoholic spirit as a premium sponsor of the nation’s game is the latest calamity in a long-line of them from the SPFL bosses.

It’s not just Rangers fans either – Labour MSP Monica Lennon railed against the sponsorship and claimed “it’s time to blow the whistle” on alcohol advertising in the men’s game [Daily Record].

The fact the league was allowed to kick off without a sponsor – despite chief executive Neil Doncaster raking in over £330k in wages – is a calamity in its own right.

But for some football fans the new deal with Glen’s is a couple of measures short of a full bottle as the supporters once again rail against the Hampden powerbrokers:

It’s the latest in a long line of calamities overseen by the SPFL, which has lost the confidence of many Scottish football supporters.

Rangers infamously demanded change at the start of the year but were voted down despite a third of clubs essentially motioning a vote of no confidence against the SPFL.

LOGIN to Comment
LOGIN to Comment