Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page

Chapter 3

Proposed action to address concerns over gambling advertising

3.1        In response to community concerns a number of initiatives are being undertaken by stakeholders in an attempt to address the amount of sports betting advertising and its integration with the game. The main area of work has been around reducing the promotion of live odds being broadcast and at sporting grounds. Detail of the various initiatives is discussed below.

Proposed action

3.2        The action being proposed centres on changes to the promotion of live odds during broadcasting of sport and at sporting venues. The changes are aimed at making a clear distinction between the commentary team and sports betting promotion.[1] The changes do not affect general gambling advertising which would continue to be allowed during a sporting match.[2]

Changes to the promotion of live odds[3]

3.3        Through its previous inquiry the committee is aware that the in-game advertising of live odds has been seen as particularly problematic and intrusive. Resulting from a COAG process,[4] in order to respond to community concern, on 27 May 2011, the government announced that it would be working with stakeholders to reduce and control the promotion of live odds during sports coverage through principles for reform[5] which are being incorporated into existing industry codes of practice by amendments.[6] In doing this the government recognised that:

...the promotion of live odds during sports broadcasts can contribute to the encouragement of gambling, particularly amongst vulnerable people including children...[7]

3.4        The government indicated that if satisfactory amendments were not in place by the end of June 2012 then the need for legislation would be considered.[8]

3.5        On 29 June 2012, the minister announced an agreement had been reached with the commercial and subscription broadcasters[9] to reduce and control the promotion of live odds during sports. Specifically, the restrictions would ban:

• sports commentators from mentioning live odds; and
• all live odds promotion during play.

3.6        The draft amendments to the codes would be based on the government's agreed principles and will be developed by broadcasters in consultation with government and the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The codes will then be registered by ACMA if it is satisfied that the codes provide appropriate community safeguards.[10] Broadcasters will comply with the provisions from the date of registration.[11] The expectation was that the amendments would be in place by the end of 2012.[12] However, this did not occur.

Status of the proposed amendments to industry codes of practice

3.7        The commercial radio industry undertook public consultation during December 2012 and was in discussions with ACMA about the detail of its code amendments. FreeTV and ASTRA released the proposed amendments to their codes on 22 April 2013 for public comment which closed on 20 May 2013.[13] However, the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (the department) advised that the broadcasters are 'already acting as if the codes were, for the most part, already implemented'.[14]

What is covered by the proposed amendments?

3.8        The detail and coverage of the proposed amendments are outlined below.

Commentators

3.9        Commentators will not promote live odds at any time in a sports broadcast.[15] Commentators are banned from discussing live odds at any time during play, during scheduled breaks in play and 30 minutes before and after the game.[16]

Representatives of gambling organisations

3.10      A commentator does not include 'discrete and distinguishable representatives of gambling organisations'. Clearly identified representatives of gambling organisations can promote live odds before play, during scheduled breaks in play, during a suspension in play and after the game has finished.[17]

Breaks in play

3.11      Live odds could be promoted during scheduled breaks in the game by clearly identified representatives of gambling organisations.[18] The scheduled breaks in play for FreeTV are outlined below[19] and would include:

Sport	Scheduled break
Cricket	Tea breaks, lunch and change of innings
Rugby League	Half time
Rugby Union	Half time
Soccer	Half time
AFL	Between each quarter
Tennis	Between each set
Formula One, Moto GP and V8 Supercars	Between each practice round, qualifying rounds and races
Basketball	Between each quarter
Netball	Between each quarter
Golf	Not more than once every hour as part of a distinct break of at least 90 seconds

What types of gambling are covered?

3.12      The committee asked whether promoting of racing odds during an NRL match would be covered by the code. The department surmised that if it was at a time that a bookmaker could talk about the odds in relation to the game in play then they would be able to talk about other types of betting as well.[20]

Children

3.13      Live odds promotion would not be directed at children or portrayed as a family activity.[21]

Responsible gambling messages

3.14      Promotion of live odds would be accompanied by a responsible gambling message.[22]

Why not a blanket ban on live odds?

3.15      During the March 2013 hearing, the department was asked why there had not just been a blanket ban on live odds at any time during a sporting match. Dr Simon Pelling replied that the government had endeavoured to find a balance:

[T]his is one of those areas where, in this case, the government chose to find a balance of impacts. So they looked at ways of minimising the extent to which that material is provided around sporting games, but at the same time recognising that this is a significant form of revenue to broadcasters and also that that revenue then flows back into the sporting events; because, as you would be aware, there are substantial commercial arrangements entered into between broadcasters and the sporting codes to broadcast their games. So I think the decision represents an attempt to find a balance of interest in negotiation with the broadcasting industry.[23]

Is the distinction clear?

3.16      Using the example of Mr Tom Waterhouse and his integration into the sporting commentary, Channel 9 advised the committee that due to the level of community concern about this practice they would be putting in place new arrangements which are aimed at clearly separating betting promotion from the commentary within a broadcast. Mr Shane Mattiske, General Manager, Strategic Projects, National Rugby League acknowledged that the 'lines were a little blurred' but they have now put in place new arrangements to ensure a 'a very clear distinction between the commentary team and the promotion of sports betting'.[24]

3.17      Mr Mattiske explained what has changed to indicate this separation:

[W]hen Tom Waterhouse, who is Channel Nine's sports betting partner, appears, he appears by himself. He appears with a super graphic describing him as a sports betting operator rather than a Channel Nine personality. He appears with material either on his mic cube or behind him that describes the fact that he is representing Tom Waterhouse the sports betting operator as opposed to a member of the commentary team. He is not interviewed by or interacting directly with the Nine commentators when he is appearing. When he appears he is talking purely about sports betting odds rather than talking about the game itself and the nature of the game.[25]

3.18      The committee discussed whether there is now sufficient distinction between Mr Waterhouse and the commentators. Mr John Brady, General Manager. Media and Communications, NRL replied:

...clearly there is some movement taking place. In relation to separating it by an ad in between half-time or to a studio off site, I would question whether you will make the differentiation any greater when it is all said and done. Having seen how the industry can work, you can still look like you are crossing to a place somewhere next door or crossing to a studio. So it comes down not so much to the location but to the manner in which it is done, and I think we need time to assess that. I think there is a separation here between what the sport is putting in place and what the broadcaster is putting in place, and some of those questions may be better asked to the broadcasters, because that is their expertise of being able to say where that separation lives through their parties. Our separation is to make sure it is not part of the commentary during the game. We do not control every part of the broadcast before and after the game, and I think Nine are conscious of the separation. I think that is where we have made some moves.[26]

3.19      Mr Brady concluded that their main concern is to ensure sports betting occurs in a way that does not affect the integrity of the sport or the broadcast. He acknowledged there will no doubt be some debate as to whether the changes put in place are achieving that but he believes they are heading in the right direction.[27] Mr Andrew Maiden, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Subscription Television and Radio Association (ASTRA) described the practice at Fox Sports to the committee:

Our producers at Fox Sports have been instructed to, firstly, cross to a betting partner who is on-air talent without using the word 'odds' but with a simple factual reference to the person's name and the company he or she represents. The on-air betting partner presenter cannot use a microphone with the Fox Sports logo on a cube; instead, if they display any logo at all, it has to be one that refers to the company they represent. We ensure that no Fox Sports branding is visible during the sponsored segment too.[28]

3.20      Mr Waterhouse was provided every opportunity to contribute to and participate in the committee's inquiry due to his position and experience in the industry. The committee acknowledges he supplied a submission[29] and offered to answer questions on notice. Mr Waterhouse declined invitations from the committee to discuss the concerns raised during this inquiry.

3.21      The committee notes the picture above[30] which indicates Mr Waterhouse is still at the ground and asked the department about whether children could reasonably distinguish a bookmaker who is on the ground speaking into a microphone from one of the commentary team. The department replied that the intent of the policy is to distinguish between the commentator who is usually someone familiar to the audience as a sporting hero or previous player over a bookmaker who 'may be a relatively unknown face'.[31]

3.22      Associate Professor Samantha Thomas informed the committee that her research indicated that people find it very difficult to distinguish between commentators and wagering promotion. Adults and children believed the promotion was a part of the match. She explained:

So this is what we are talking about in terms of that blurring of the boundary between what is an ad and what is able to be recognised as an ad in a commercial break, and what is part of the game. So that is embedding, and we have seen it with other issues. This commentary embedding is certainly very difficult to pick up, for adults and children, as being an ad—as being a piece of marketing. I think that is really concerning in terms of people being able to see that as an explicit ad for a gambling product. The other thing that we have heard in our research is that people do not often believe that it is coming from a wagering company; they believe that it is coming from either the sporting team or the sporting code. If I were a member of that sporting code or team, I would be very concerned about the message that was giving.[32]

3.23      The committee asked about whether younger children would be less likely to be able to make that distinction. Associate Professor Thomas responded:

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence about that. For example, if you follow social media, we have seen a number of parents talk on social media about how their kids believe that Tom Waterhouse is the person who owns gambling for the AFL and the NRL. Little kids who may be watching these games—and I think the figure that was given by Astra was that 39,000 kids, and up to 55,000 kids, are watching games—are not able to clearly distinguish that as an ad. One of the interesting things when we talk to young people about advertising is that they do understand the intent of the advertising, but they also say that gambling is fine and that it is part of the match experience.[33]

3.24      Regarding the proposed amendments to the codes for live odds, Associate Professor Thomas said that in her opinion it won't make a significant difference to how a child experiences the game as it is difficult for people to separate the commentary and the marketing.[34]

Announcement of further action

3.25      Responding to the continuing level of concern in the community, on 26 May 2013, the Prime Minister and Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy made a further announcement regarding the promotion and advertising of gambling during sport.

What is covered?

3.26      The detail and coverage of the announcement is outlined below.[35]

Live odds

3.27      All promotion of live odds by gambling companies as well as commentators will be prohibited during the broadcast of live sports matches. 

General gambling advertising

3.28      All generic gambling advertisements will be banned during play but would be allowed during scheduled commercial breaks such as quarter or half time and before or after the game.

3.29      The government indicated that it will monitor the intensity of generic gambling advertisements and if it is found to be beyond 'reasonable levels' will impose a total advertising ban.

Other gambling promotion

3.30      Gambling advertisements on banners, sponsorship logos and other broadcast promotions must not appear during play.

Location of gambling representatives

3.31      Representatives of gambling companies must not be at the ground or around the venue and must not appear with the commentary team. They must also be clearly identified as a gambling representative.

Further amendments to industry codes of practice

3.32      The broadcasting industry is expected to submit a revised code to ACMA to reflect these changes as soon as possible. The Prime Minister also indicated that should the industry not make these changes then the government will fast-track legislation.[36]

Response from broadcasters, wagering operators and sports

3.33      Free TV has indicated that it will submit a revised code in line with the government's announcement within the next two weeks.[37] The Australian Wagering Council has signalled that its members accept the proposed changes and will work with the broadcasting industry to implement them.[38] The NRL has also supported the announcement to ban the promotion of live odds.[39]

Committee view

3.34      As with previous inquiries the committee supports a public or population health approach to gambling which considers the whole population rather than only the individuals experiencing problems or at high risk. Although not being directly targeted, the committee is particularly concerned about children being exposed to the advertising for an adult product, the messages which are being consumed and what effect this may have on future behaviour.

3.35      The committee welcomes the 26 May 2013 government announcement to ban the promotion of live odds during sporting games which reflects community expectations. It notes and supports the willingness of the government to take further action should scheduled breaks become filled with generic gambling advertising.

3.36      The committee notes there are other industry self-regulatory codes which could also include the promotion of gambling products. For example, the Australian Association of National Advertisers, which is the peak national body for advertisers, has a code for advertising and marketing communications to children. This code includes the advertising and marketing of alcohol but not gambling products.[40]

Recommendation 1

3.37      The committee recommends that the government and government agencies review the self-regulatory action being taken by industry with a view to legislating in this area if industry does not make appropriate changes regarding the promotion of gambling products in an environment which includes children.

3.38      The committee notes the exemption for gambling advertising for sporting programs and believes this inconsistency is reflected in community concern about the level of exposure of children to gambling advertising. Given the level of concern in the community and the notable increase in sporting betting advertising in recent years the committee believes it is time to review this exemption. This process would provide for appropriate consultation with the community and stakeholders and should also serve to articulate and provide greater clarity around the reasons for this exemption and whether it is meeting its intended purpose.

Recommendation 2

3.39      The committee recommends that the government and government agencies review the current exemption of gambling advertising for sporting programs. This review would include processes to ensure an appropriate level of public consultation.

3.40      In its previous inquiry the committee noted its concern that sports betting is becoming normalised for children and that the long-term effects of being subjected to high levels of gambling advertising are largely unknown. The research that has been conducted since the committee's last report does not assuage these concerns and it repeats the need for further research to determine what the effects of such promotion may be having on children. The committee notes that since its previous report the Australian Gambling Research Centre within the Australian Institute of Family Studies is being established by the government and it recommends this body undertake or commission further research.

Recommendation 3

3.41      The committee recommends that the Australian Gambling Research Centre undertake or commission further research on the longer-term effects of gambling advertising on children, particularly in relation to the 'normalisation' of gambling during sport.

3.42      In its previous inquiry the committee also highlighted the need for effective harm minimisation messages given the amount of sports betting advertising and the inconsistency in standards of presentation. While these can never compete with the advertising campaigns funded by industry further work should be undertaken to ensure they are as effective as possible.[41] There should be greater consistency of standards such as size, duration, colour and should include references to the likelihood of losing money. It therefore repeats its previous recommendation.

Recommendation 4

3.43      The committee recommends that the COAG Select Council on Gambling Reform work towards nationally consistent requirements for responsible gambling messages to ensure they work effectively as harm minimisation measures to counterbalance the promotion of gambling.

Changes for live odds at the grounds

3.44      In 2011, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator the Hon. Stephen Conroy, indicated that states and territories would be investigating steps to take to limit the promotion of live odds at sporting grounds.[42]

3.45      The department advised that live odds promotion on big screens in sporting venues will be prohibited during play. Specifically, the NRL has banned live odds being broadcast at games by ground announcers or on scoreboards. In addition, the AFL has reached agreement with certain stadiums, including the MCG and Etihad, to prohibit live odds promotion in ground during matches.[43]

3.46      The NRL indicated that there is no promotion of live odds in venue when the match is in progress. However, there may be promotion of odds prior to the match commencing on the scoreboard.[44]

3.47      Mr Brett Clothier, Integrity Manager, AFL provided details of the AFL's policy for 2013 which applies the following restrictions to the promotion of live odds and wagering advertising at AFL venues:

First, live odds will not be permitted to be displayed at any time on the venue scoreboards. A maximum of two wagering providers will have onscreen representation for any form of advertising. Club wagering sponsors will be limited to fence signage only. Wagering providers will not be represented on the screen as goal replay breakers.[45] That position goes a little bit further than the overall COMPPS position. We support the COMPPS position as being appropriate for other sports, but I want to clarify that that is our position in relation to in-ground advertising.[46]

Committee view

3.48      The committee welcomes changes to reduce the promotion of live odds at sporting grounds. However it notes that people at venues are a captive audience and these sporting matches are marketed as a family friendly environment. During this and its previous inquiry the committee heard that over and above the promotion of live odds there is a broader suite of marketing at stadiums including sponsorship visible on banners (including run through banners and goal posts), player uniforms and fan jerseys. There are also pop up messages at the stadiums which encourage people to bet as well as betting kiosks and mobile betting vans as pictured below[47] and logos on player uniforms. All of this sends a complete message. Live odds are only a fraction of the total marketing that occurs within a sporting match.[48]

3.49      The committee particularly notes the placement of sports betting promotion across the uniforms of senior players. This promotion does not carry any responsible gambling messages. Children look up to these players who they see as sporting heroes and role models. Such a highly visible message, which is obvious during play is promoting brand recognition and contributing to the normalisation of sports betting for children.

3.50      The committee believes that given sporting matches are promoted as a family friendly environment, these other forms of gambling promotion should also be subject to a review.

Recommendation 5

3.51      The committee recommends that the COAG Select Council on Gambling Reform review the amount of betting promotion at venues, including the display of sports betting promotion on uniforms for senior teams to determine whether the amount is appropriate in what is marketed as a family friendly environment. This review should include avenues for public consultation.

Other issues

Replica uniforms

3.52      Mr Shane Mattiske from the NRL advised that none of the junior jerseys carry sports betting promotion, only the senior teams are able to do this. He confirmed that this follows the principle that minors should not be directly targeted.[49]

3.53      However, the committee notes the following merchandise for children on offer by the AFL and featuring a Centrebet logo.[50]

3.54      During the committee's last inquiry the Australian Internet Bookmakers' Association (AIBA) highlighted proposals from sports betting agencies on changes to advertising practices, including the removal of logos from children's merchandise as follows:

In May [2011], sports betting providers including Sportsbet, Sportingbet, Centrebet and Betfair presented a proposal to the Federal Minister for Sport for changes to advertising practices. Importantly, these included proposals that:

• Odds updates in commentary during play to be phased out
• Gambling companies sponsors logos not be permitted on children’s replica sports shirts (a practice already applied by these companies); and that
• Sporting clubs and gambling providers be banned from offering “white label” betting sites, e.g. Bombersbet.com.au[51]

3.55      The committee understands that the AIBA is now the Australian Wagering Council (AWC). Its submission makes no mention of this issue but stated:

AWC members do not directly target their industry advertising and promotional strategies to children.[52]

Recommendation 6

3.56      The committee recommends that the Minister for Sport work with the Australian Wagering Council and professional sporting codes to urgently review the availability of merchandise to children featuring sports betting logos or names.

New and emerging technology

3.57      Dr Christopher Hunt from the Gambling Treatment Clinic at the University of Sydney highlighted that use of mobile phone applications (apps) to place bets is another area of concern that has continued to grow since the committee's previous inquiry (see example below).[53] Dr Hunt explained:

Clients are able to place bets at any time in any location, whereas previously they may have been limited in placing bets at times when they had access to a computer. Several clients have reports that this has allowed them to place bets more frequently than they would have previously, which has increased the losses accrued. Clients also report that given the ease with which they are able to pace bets via this method without having to re-enter credit card details means that it is often difficult to keep track of their current losses, increasing the likelihood of larger debts being created.[54]

3.58      The effects of new and emerging technology were also raised by the Gambling Impact Society of NSW[55] and the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.[56] The committee agrees that more research is needed in this area.

Recommendation 7

3.59      The committee recommends that the Australian Gambling Research Centre undertake or commission further research on the effect of mobile phone applications on problem gambling, what harm minimisation features would be effective and how best to incorporate these features into regulatory structures.

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page