Federal government proposes a ban on gambling advertisements during sport broadcasts

[lockheed]

The federal government is looking for ways to limit the amount of sports betting on free to air tv stations - http://www.theage.com.au/business/m...ut-down-freetoair-sports-20170420-gvosv1.html - although the AFL and other sporting bodies are working hard to ameliorate any proposed legislation - http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...red-down-gambling-reform-20170420-gvp0wz.html.

I mention this because advertising revenue, including that from bookmakers, underpins the ability of tv stations to bid for the right to transmit sporting events, and hence bids up the value of broadcasting deals.

The AFL and broadcasters are locked into a six year agreement, so the AFL is fine for now. But it perhaps suggests that there might be an upper value to our broadcast deals, with all the potential flow on effects to the funding of clubs, player salaries and the promotion of the game at the grass roots.

 

[discomute]

IMO Something needs to be done. Self regulation was working fine for a while, but clearly the wheels have fallen off. The amount of gambling is ridiculous, kids now think in terms of $1.50 favourites, etc. A total ban I would support, but I would prefer a less draconian measure first.

 

[Quivorir]

Would prefer it banned everywhere. I am a pretty regular punter, but * ads every 2 minutes annoy me. The fact the every show on SEN is sponsored by a different betting company with odds updates every half hour drives me nuts

 

[ansonholt]

The constant gambling ads annoy the heck out of me and, even worse, the weaving in of the betting markets into the pre-game coverage - as if it's something newsworthy and important - makes it seem as if it's a part of the game. IT'S NOT A PART OF THE GAME.

If people want to gamble, they will, so removing advertising isn't going to stop that. To hell with the revenue drop - it's not worth it. The human cost of gambling is huge, and anything that extends that or makes it more prevalent is a bad thing.

I fully support this move.

 

[archereleven]

One thing i have found excellent about Western Australia is the ban on pokies that has always been here. Blight on society.

Gambling ads are desensitizing kids and making them think its an important part of sport and sports coverage in general. They cannot escape it as its forced down their throats during the broadcast and then every advertisement in between.

I gamble minimally, but would support a total ban on any advertising. Its such a s**t industry in general imo.

 

[Peter27374]

Good point raised and one of the great things for NMFC that we survive w/o pokies. Very good point about how clubs/players presume an ever increasing media deal when beyond the current deal the media landscape is hard to predict.

 

[utility]

Happy for them to be banned. For those old enough people got in a hissy fit when cigarette advertising was banned, now it is accepted practice. With a long-term view I think it's a good move.

 

[goalieboy82]

any bets on if it will pass.

 

[Le Grille]

any bets on if it will pass.

It will pass, because its beyond saturation point.

 

[muttley45]

If this gets through, and highly unlikely, any ad's lost during actual broadcasts will be more than made up for during anytime there is not a direct broadcast, so less will be actually more.

 

[Unity-28]

what i find interesting, if this passes, and the Afl (and all sports really) start making less revenue due to less advertising, will the players also take pay cuts, as they want a percentage of the revenue, rather than a set amount payable?

ps, i hate gambling, and think it should never gave been allowed to be advertised anywhere, where kids ciuld view it.....

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

It will pass, because its beyond saturation point.

I'll bet you $1 it fails to get up

 

[ferball]

If this gets through, and highly unlikely, any ad's lost during actual broadcasts will be more than made up for during anytime there is not a direct broadcast, so less will be actually more.

Yeah, big fuss about family friendliness. No adds "siren to siren" with pre game entertainment/analysis brought to you by all the worlds a gamble dot com. With the game described in gambling terms not football ones.

So what is a direct broadcast?

What about a delayed telecast? What's the deal if the game is shown interstate 45 seconds later than "live". They already use those quotation marks to describe AFL broadcasts up here in NSW.

 

[Gasometer]

So wat?

There are more pressing issues.

I propose "A Bill to remove BT from AFL Ch 7 Friday night games."

 

[LT Smash]

IMO Something needs to be done. Self regulation was working fine for a while, but clearly the wheels have fallen off. The amount of gambling is ridiculous, kids now think in terms of $1.50 favourites, etc. A total ban I would support, but I would prefer a less draconian measure first.

Maybe like smoking, we should keep it legal to benefit from the revenues but work on isolating, alienating and humiliating gamblers.

 

[discomute]

Maybe like smoking, we should keep it legal to benefit from the revenues but work on isolating, alienating and humiliating gamblers.

I know you meant this ironically, but I'm all for this approach.

 

[R00StaR]

Id expect this sort of thing from the Fabian Socialist party NOT a Liberal (of the classic variety) party. A Liberal is about protecting the freedoms of the smallest minority group in the world........the Individual. Not the manchildren that are so idiotic they must act on shiny ad and need BIG MUMMY Govt's Nipple at hands reach at all times.

 

[discomute]

Id expect this sort of thing from the Fabian Socialist party NOT a Liberal (of the classic variety) party. A Liberal is about protecting the freedoms of the smallest minority group in the world........the Individual. Not the manchildren that are so idiotic they must act on shiny ad and need BIG MUMMY Govt's Nipple at hands reach at all times.

Yes well, and this is meant as constructively as possible, when looking at classic-liberalism, you can't just take one individual (the gambler) and ignore the rest. What about the child that grows up considerably poorer because his father is a problem gambler? Are that child's rights worth taking into consideration? Most would say "yes" and that would lead you to a ban on advertising... assuming the connection between advertising and increasing problem gambling is there (which of course it is, hence why they advertise so much).

 

[Orange Peanut]

Gambling ads s**t me but I'm constantly surprised at how many people want to live in a nanny state.

 

[ferball]

If you're going to have a state it may as well be a nanny one. All states are nanny states to some extent. Its just a matter of degree.

 

[rippersnipper]

Gambling is stupid. I hope it passes.

 

[StiffArm]

Gambling ads s**t me but I'm constantly surprised at how many people want to live in a nanny state.

Absolutely. It beats the hell out of an "eat s**t and die" state.

 

[Gasometer]

Absolutely. It beats the hell out of an "eat s**t and die" state.

Look as long as they sell the s**t sandwiches after a loss who cares where you are.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

I remember when cricket argued it couldn't survive without cigarette advertising/sponsorship. Gambling advertising is a blight on footy. Get rid of.

 

[Mav]

One thing i have found excellent about Western Australia is the ban on pokies that has always been here. Blight on society.

Gambling ads are desensitizing kids and making them think its an important part of sport and sports coverage in general. They cannot escape it as its forced down their throats during the broadcast and then every advertisement in between.

I gamble minimally, but would support a total ban on any advertising. Its such a s**t industry in general imo.

If Perth had pokies it would also have The Highway, The Chelsea, Shents, Swannie, Mossie Park, The Globe, Rose, Fitzy, Federal, North Perth and what ever other pub has closed down since I've been gone.

You'd also have cheap schnities!

And a lot less Lotto adds!