Last week, fans of the ACT Brumbies came together on a cool afternoon in Canberra to witness their team face off against Moana Pasifika in the Super Rugby competition. As supporters entered the stadium, one fan expressed a common sentiment regarding the gambling sector, stating, “The house always wins.”
The intertwining of gambling advertising and Australian sports is both prevalent and impactful. However, a recent survey commissioned by the Australia Institute and executed by YouGov revealed that 77% of participants favored a complete prohibition on gambling advertisements. Supporting this finding, a study from Deakin University surveyed children in New South Wales and Victoria regarding the sports industry’s dependence on gambling revenue.
A 15-year-old boy remarked to researchers, “People are going to think of you as paid off. They’re not gonna want to watch anymore because you seem too fake.” Similarly, a 13-year-old girl expressed concern, saying, “You’re influencing people from a young age, like, corrupting their minds … I’m 13, I shouldn’t have to worry about gambling.” The survey, led by public health expert Samantha Thomas, encompassed 64 participants aged 12 to 17.
Professor Thomas noted the awareness among younger individuals, stating, “They comprehend that sporting codes and broadcasters are influencing governmental decisions that do not serve young people’s interests. The public appears to be increasingly frustrated, which is evident in the growing number of parents and youth declaring ‘enough is enough.’
The federal government has stated its pride in the proposed adjustments to regulations governing the multi-billion-dollar gambling industry. According to its analysis, Australians are exposed to billions of gambling advertisements annually.
In a recent Question Time, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese asserted, “We are taking unprecedented action regarding problem gambling, more than any previous government in Australia’s history.” However, the government’s proposed regulatory changes have encountered significant backlash, primarily due to the absence of a complete ban on gambling advertisements.
Instead, the suggested reforms would implement time-based restrictions (some of which already exist), limit the frequency of ads per hour, and phase out sponsorship on jerseys and within stadiums. The legislation would also bar online advertisements targeting users under 18 and mandate that social media platforms create an “opt-out” option for adult users.
Professor Thomas criticized these measures, stating, “This decision favors powerful industries profiting from a product that harms and occasionally results in fatalities.” The government faces lobbying from sporting organizations, broadcasters, and gambling firms when considering legal changes.
Notably, gambling companies are significant contributors to the Labor Party, while gambling lobbyists, along with leaders from the NRL, have direct access to the prime minister. Marisa Paterson, the ACT Labor government’s Minister for Gaming Reform, has a background in researching gambling harm and advocating for changes in the sector.
She commented, “The gambling industry holds substantial power in Australia, similar to other influential sectors such as mining, where lobby groups seek to sway policy.” A 2023 study by Melbourne University and Transparency International identified 280 lobbyists affiliated with the gambling industry operating within federal parliament, including several former government officials.
This number significantly surpasses lobbyists from other industries, although the extent of their influence on policy remains challenging to gauge. Submissions from the AFL and NRL to the 2023 Murphy review opposed sweeping reforms on gambling advertising. The landmark review, titled ‘You Win Some, You Lose More,’ proposed 31 recommendations, including a total advertising ban, the establishment of a national regulatory body, and the immediate prohibition of inducements, which are defined as offers encouraging more frequent or riskier gambling behavior.
However, the federal government has not adopted these recommendations, a situation Professor Thomas describes as “regulatory capture.” She emphasized, “We have ample evidence supporting the need to ban gambling ads to mitigate gambling-related harm, yet the government’s regulations have been weakened due to lobbying by the gambling sector and its allies in broadcasting and sports.”
In preparing its response to the Murphy review, the Albanese government instructed the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts to conduct an impact assessment. The department was presented with three options: maintaining the current regulations, implementing a comprehensive reform package, or enacting a complete ban on all gambling advertising.
The government ultimately chose the second option, which the department had recommended as the preferred route. However, Catherine Ordway, a recognized expert in sports integrity, criticized this decision, arguing that it largely disregarded the extensive analysis provided in the Murphy report, which was thorough and widely consulted, evaluating numerous recommendations for national regulation.
