The public’s view could not be clearer. Given a choice over what industry they would like to see banished from sponsoring professional sport, a recent survey found more than 60 per cent of people wanted online gambling given the boot. That was 20 per cent more than those who wanted alcohol dumped and more than double the number of those who wanted an end to advertising from the fossil fuel industry.
This should not be a surprise. Earlier this year, a survey by the AFL Fans Association, a grassroots group that lobbies the AFL and its clubs, found that more than a third of fans were worried about the proliferation of gambling ads when they go to the football and during television broadcasts.
Online gambling companies must ditch the “gamble responsibly” tagline when advertising their services by March next year, and instead use up to seven new evidence-backed taglines.Credit:Shutterstock
The contentious issue of advertising in sport has come to the boil again after a player on the Diamonds national netball team, Donnell Wallam, objected to wearing a uniform that bore the logo of mining giant Hancock Prospecting, owned by Gina Rinehart. Wallam raised objections because Rinehart’s father, Lang Hancock, said in 1984 that some Indigenous people should “breed themselves out” by assimilating or being sterilised. The protest resulted in Rinehart dropping her $15 million sponsorship of the sport, which was then picked up by the Victorian government.
And this week it was announced that online wagering companies would be required to ditch the phrase “gamble responsibly” by March next year in favour of taglines that prompt gamblers to consider the consequences of losing a bet. The new taglines include: “Chances are you’re about to lose”; “Think. Is this a bet you really want to place?″; and “What’s gambling really costing you?”
This is a step in the right direction, but the ubiquitous nature of online gambling in sport has many wondering whether governments need to take stronger action.
An Age investigation earlier this year revealed four ways that proceeds of gambling pour into the coffers of Australia’s most popular football competition. Most are well known. The TV stations that pay for AFL broadcast rights, now worth $4.5 billion over seven years, are partly funded by the huge advertising spending by betting companies. The pervasive on-ground advertising is worth up to $3 million to the AFL, and a sponsorship with Sportsbet rakes in up to $8 million.
One less known but lucrative revenue stream is the cut the AFL gets from every gaming company. In the early 2000s, Andrew Demetriou, who headed the AFL then, called the bookmakers together to demand a cut. According to Age sports reporter Sam McClure, the “integrity agreement” resulted in the AFL receiving 10¢ for every dollar made by corporate bookmakers on the game. This has turned into a huge windfall. Two senior wagering sources have told The Age it could have made the AFL up to $40 million this year.
There is a ban on gambling ads during live sports broadcasts before 8.30pm, implemented in 2018, and restrictions on advertising in G-rated programs in certain narrow time slots, but betting agencies manage to circumvent these rules during AFL games by saturating the airspace at half-time and after the final siren.
What should be done? Nationals leader David Littleproud this week urged the federal parliament to consider if there should be a total ban on gambling ads during sports broadcasts, saying more could be done to protect children from exposure to online betting. Littleproud backed the tagline changes but said they didn’t go far enough to protect children from watching high-saturation gambling advertising during sports broadcasts.
He is right. A change of wording during the advertisements is hardly going to curtail the process by which children are indoctrinated with the perception on television and at grounds that betting and sports are intrinsically linked, and that one makes the other more fun.
Littleproud called for public debate on this issue to be steered by parliament’s standing committee on social policy, which is holding an inquiry into online gambling and its impact on problem gamblers and children. The inquiry, led by Labor MP Peta Murphy, will examine the effectiveness of current online gambling regulations and advertising restrictions, including advertising on social media and through sponsorship or branding.
The federal government is under pressure from the crossbench, including long-standing anti-gambling advocate Andrew Wilkie and independent Zoe Daniel, to take stronger action against gambling companies. They have called for an inquiry into the promotion of sports gambling.
As many would have done this week, the odd flutter on the Melbourne Cup can be harmless fun. But we also know that many who gamble are addicts, and their actions have a drastic impact on not just the punter, but also the wider community: family, friends, workplaces.
The Age doesn’t expect sporting bodies to go cold turkey by cutting gaming revenue entirely. But the trend is going the wrong way, as gambling companies look to sports as a growth opportunity. The public is clearly calling for a change; it is time for governments to take these calls seriously.