The Federal Parliament's committee looking at online gambling has released its report today. In no surprise to anyone, it recommends a ban on all advertising and sponsorship, to be implemented over four years. I'm not particularly interested in prosecuting the argumenmt for or against the ban. What I am interested in is the effect of the lost revenue on the AFL, either as direct payments by betting companies or from reduced broadcast rights which are likely to follow. 

The AFL (or VFL) has previously had to manage when tobacco advertising and sponsorship was banned. But where's the replacement revenue going to come from this time? Different advertisers? Increased ground entry fees? Increased membership fees? Or will costs be cut, and if so, where? Player salaries?

28 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The Federal Parliament's committee looking at online gambling has released its report today. In no surprise to anyone, it recommends a ban on all advertising and sponsorship, to be implemented over four years. I'm not particularly interested in prosecuting the argumenmt for or against the ban. What I am interested in is the effect of the lost revenue on the AFL, either as direct payments by betting companies or from reduced broadcast rights which are likely to follow. 

The AFL (or VFL) has previously had to manage when tobacco advertising and sponsorship was banned. But where's the replacement revenue going to come from this time? Different advertisers? Increased ground entry fees? Increased membership fees? Or will costs be cut, and if so, where? Player salaries?

We walked away from gambling sponsorship. The AFL needed a little push. Someone will will the void and the sooner the better

I'm surprised IT and data security money isn't bigger in the AFL.

Instead of our fundraising strategy being asking members for donations, I hope we're looking at some of these emerging players. 

Also, there's a big difference between a recommendation to parliament and legislating that change. Many recommendations from countless royal commissions are never implemented, but are recommended.

How much do the AFL and the clubs get now? 

I hope they do not raise membership fees to offset the loss of income.

They get a % of turnover.

This does not appear to be included in the report.

Ad revenue goes mainly to the broadcasters so in the first instance it's their problem. Not sure if the betting agencies sponsor any clubs.

It's an insidious relationship that should never have been allowed to grow to that which it is today.

My understanding is that Sportsbet only contributes $10m per year to the AFL. Not much of this would flow through to the clubs. The bigger issue is adverting on television/online which will have a flow in effect. 

2 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

They get a % of turnover.

This does not appear to be included in the report.

Ad revenue goes mainly to the broadcasters so in the first instance it's their problem. Not sure if the betting agencies sponsor any clubs.

It's an insidious relationship that should never have been allowed to grow to that which it is today.

Maybe we should also ban sugar drink and junk food. This is becoming a nanny state 

About time. They’ll sniff out more money elsewhere. Hopefully money with a less corrupting nature. Nothing has been worse for the game than gambling money. Even if it meant the game just had less money, still a great outcome. 

7 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

Maybe we should also ban sugar drink and junk food. This is becoming a nanny state 

What are you talking about? We ban or regulate or tax things that we deem to be against the public good all the time.

Alcohol and cigarettes are very obvious examples. You're not going to be able to stop alcohol, cigarettes or betting, but we can tax and regulate it.

Sorry Binners.

7 minutes ago, A F said:

What are you talking about? We ban or regulate or tax things that we deem to be against the public good all the time.

Alcohol and cigarettes are very obvious examples. You're not going to be able to stop alcohol, cigarettes or betting, but we can tax and regulate it.

Sorry Binners.

Sugar and junk food also cause harm to society. So what’s stopping the government taxing them? 

17 minutes ago, von said:

About time. They’ll sniff out more money elsewhere. Hopefully money with a less corrupting nature. Nothing has been worse for the game than gambling money. Even if it meant the game just had less money, still a great outcome. 

Be careful what you wish for… maybe fossil fuel companies next? 

21 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

My understanding is that Sportsbet only contributes $10m per year to the AFL. Not much of this would flow through to the clubs. The bigger issue is adverting on television/online which will have a flow in effect. 

It's alot more than $10m. Gillon McLachlan responded to a question in the enquiry where the AFL earns double digit (at least 10%) of its revenue through sports betting. He explained that the AFL earns a % of each bet placed on AFL through one of its betting partners. This means the AFL earns at least $80m from betting and a significant portion of this is subject to how well the AFL is able to promote gambling.

8 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

Sugar and junk food also cause harm to society. So what’s stopping the government taxing them? 

Have you seen That Sugar Film?

Those industries have captured government (via lobbyists) in the same ways the Tobacco lobby remained relevant for so long.

They've paid scientists to write papers downplaying the impacts on us. That film explores what the sugar industry has lifted from the Tobacco industry.

As for betting agencies being able to take over, you can bet lobbyists are the reason why it's taken so long to get even a parliamentary recommendation on the table.

11 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

Be careful what you wish for… maybe fossil fuel companies next? 

Let's hope so. Invest in renewable energy. A major driver of inflation over the past 2 years is the cartel behaviour of local providers, and the price setting power of the OPEC cartel.

I think sports betting should be more akin to alcohol (very harmful for some, ok for many others) than smoking (utterly harmful to everyone) and so should be allowed some limited advertising when kids aren’t targeted. 

Clubs have wisely jumped away from having betting sponsors. The league should ditch their deal. The percentage of turnover as a product fee funds integrity and has to stay.

Id be ok with one ad a quarter/ad break post 9pm to minimise the impact on addicts but not completely derail tv ad revenue.

It’s certainly going to be a challenge for the tv networks though, I wonder if the afl had a contingency in the tv deal for less revenue if gambling ads were banned.

1 minute ago, DeeSpencer said:

I think sports betting should be more akin to alcohol (very harmful for some, ok for many others) than smoking (utterly harmful to everyone) and so should be allowed some limited advertising when kids aren’t targeted. 

Clubs have wisely jumped away from having betting sponsors. The league should ditch their deal. The percentage of turnover as a product fee funds integrity and has to stay.

Id be ok with one ad a quarter/ad break post 9pm to minimise the impact on addicts but not completely derail tv ad revenue.

It’s certainly going to be a challenge for the tv networks though, I wonder if the afl had a contingency in the tv deal for less revenue if gambling ads were banned.

Nicely argued. The point about funding integrity is a good one to make.

54 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

They get a % of turnover.

This does not appear to be included in the report.

Ad revenue goes mainly to the broadcasters so in the first instance it's their problem. Not sure if the betting agencies sponsor any clubs.

It's an insidious relationship that should never have been allowed to grow to that which it is today.

Please correct if I'm wrong but presumably that Ad revenue helps support the payment of Broadcasting Rights which I understand ultimately trickle down to the clubs

Doesn't that mean the problem will still filter back to the AFL - unless the Broadcasters can offset that Ad revenue which based on the current advertising is probably unlikely? 

1 hour ago, bandicoot said:

Maybe we should also ban sugar drink and junk food. This is becoming a nanny state 

Becoming???? Ha

It’s such a huge problem. My 11 yo talks about the odds and multi’s. It is so disgusting how far the AFL and government has allowed this to grow in our community. Thankfully common sense has prevailed. 

59 minutes ago, A F said:

What are you talking about? We ban or regulate or tax things that we deem to be against the public good all the

We tax everything except fresh food whether or not its for the public good.

Gumments are addicted to raising revenue and can't live within their means.

33 minutes ago, A F said:

Let's hope so. Invest in renewable energy. A major diver of inflation over the past 2 years is the cartel behaviour of local providers, and the price setting power of the OPEC cartel.

70% of a barrel of oil goes to products other than fuel.  Good luck living a modern life without them.

Regarding the report, it will be a challenge for the AFL but as noted they can just move on to another lobbiest captured industry.

3 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

It’s such a huge problem. My 11 yo talks about the odds and multi’s. It is so disgusting how far the AFL and government has allowed this to grow in our community. Thankfully common sense has prevailed. 

At this stage, it's just an Australian Parliamentary report. Which recommendations are adopted remains to be seen. 

Nathan Brown just logged on to Seek.com

Why does it take 4 years to implement a ban on this?

By that time a new federal government will be in.

What are the odds of them overruling this decision?