In a recent , journalist Matilda Bowsley takes a light-hearted yet insightful look at the heated national debate over gambling advertisements in Australia. As she points out, Australia is in the middle of a significant discussion about whether or not to restrict ads from online gambling companies.

“Imagine what you could be buying instead,” Bowsley quips, referencing the now-iconic tagline from these ads, before steering the conversation to the origins of this debate. The conversation really took off back in 2023 when the federal Parliament launched an inquiry into the damage caused by online gambling and its relentless advertising. The inquiry’s final report didn’t hold back – it suggested a complete phase-out of all online gambling advertisements across Australia. No more TV ads, no more banners on websites, and no more logos on jerseys, like the one currently worn by the Sea Eagles.

According to Bowsley, the government seemed to agree with this bold move, at least in part. While they haven’t yet made an official announcement, it appears they’re leaning towards a more moderate approach: banning ads on social media and websites, while merely limiting their presence on free-to-air TV. Sports teams and their gambling logos, however, would largely be left untouched. Critics have already warned that these “half-measures” might be too weak to make a real difference, but that hasn’t stopped the gambling lobby and TV networks from going on the defensive.

Matilda’s lessons in adapting to change

One of the loudest arguments against a full ban, Bowsley notes with a smirk, is that it would supposedly spell disaster for grassroots community sports. Documents obtained by The Guardian claim that the AFL could lose over $120 million annually if the legislation passes, a figure that comes straight from the gambling industry itself. Bowsley is quick to point out that while the AFL does commit 10 percent of its revenue to community footy, this still only amounts to a $12 million shortfall – a sum the Victorian state government alone could easily cover with its planned $62 million investment in community sports clubs for 2024-2025. Bowsley also highlights the déjà vu of it all. She draws a parallel to the 1970s and 1990s when the tobacco industry made eerily similar arguments while facing advertising bans. Back then, the doom-and-gloom predictions didn’t pan out, as government support and new sponsors quickly filled any gaps.

Food for thought

And then there’s the claim that without gambling ad revenue, TV stations might go belly up. “Surprise, surprise,” Bowsley says with a chuckle, “this was another big argument during the tobacco debate.” But, just like the sports leagues, TV stations survived, and there’s no reason to believe they wouldn’t adapt again. She points to Spain, where a ban on online gambling ads didn’t bring about the predicted apocalypse – TV networks and sports leagues adapted just fine in Australia.

Of course, the gambling industry also warns that a total ad ban would push consumers towards illegal offshore gambling sites, which are far less regulated. Bowsley takes this claim with a grain of salt, noting that the Australian parliamentary inquiry did acknowledge this risk, but found that most of the harm currently comes from legal, onshore gambling.

Wrapping up her podcast, Bowsley touches on the real issue at the heart of this debate – the harm caused by gambling. She believes that a significant portion of online gambling revenue comes from the biggest losers – problem gamblers, who make up just 10 percent of punters but place over a third of all bets. While it’s true that gambling ad revenue supports community sports and TV stations, it’s worth remembering that much of that money comes from those who can least afford it. With her trademark mix of wit and wisdom, Bowsley leaves listeners with plenty to ponder. As Australia debates the future of gambling ads, it’s clear this discussion will be on the table longer than a high stakes poker game in a casino.