Australian MPs accepted sports tickets from gambling firms amid calls for gambling ad reform

Dig Deeper

Related stories

2025/04/16: Australian politicians gifted AU$245,000 worth of sports tickets while mulling ban on online sports betting ads 2025/11/27: Albanese holds firm as Australian MPs push for gambling advertising ban 2025/06/30: Australian government criticized for gambling reform delay 2025/12/12: Australian lobby group behind youth social media ban linked to major gambling ad company  

The Backstory

Why the gifts matter now

Disclosures that multiple MPs accepted tickets and hospitality from major betting operators land amid an unresolved national fight over gambling advertising. The revelations intersect with a two-year policy vacuum since a bipartisan inquiry led by the late Labor MP Peta Murphy recommended a phased, three-year path to a full ad ban. That gap has allowed lobbying and political pressure to build, widened splits inside government and heightened scrutiny of any perceived coziness between lawmakers and the industry they are weighing whether to regulate.

In recent months, scrutiny has intensified as data compiled from the parliamentary gift register showed the scale of political access granted by sporting events. A tally of declared gifts valued at AU$245,000 between June 2023 and March 2025 — including AU$29,000 in tickets to the prime minister — has sharpened concerns about soft influence while a ban remains undecided. The analysis, reported via Reuters and detailed in our coverage of politicians accepting AU$245,000 worth of tickets, has fueled calls from independents and campaigners to insulate policymaking from industry largesse.

The optics are potent because sports betting ads have become omnipresent around major codes, and the inquiry’s core recommendation — a staged ban spanning three years — is still on the government’s desk. Every new disclosure of corporate hospitality compounds the perception problem for both major parties, especially as lawmakers cite concern about children’s exposure to gambling marketing while attending industry-hosted marquee events.

A stalled response to Peta Murphy’s roadmap

The government has yet to formally answer the 2023 “You Win Some, You Lose More” report, which advanced 31 unanimous recommendations to reduce gambling harm. That delay is now a political issue in its own right. Advocates and medical groups say the cost of inaction is mounting as another sporting season begins with heavy advertising and live odds baked into broadcasts and stadium experiences. Our earlier report on criticism of the reform lag captured growing frustration that two years on, only incremental measures — such as banning online credit card betting and launching the BetStop self-exclusion register — have been enacted.

Public health voices argue that a comprehensive ad phase-out is necessary to meaningfully reduce harm, especially among young people. They frame the current moment as analogous to tobacco control: legal products, but with strong limits to minimize youth exposure. With Australians wagering more than AU$244 billion annually, reformers warn that normalizing gambling through saturation marketing risks deeper social costs in addiction, domestic violence and financial distress. The longer the government waits, they say, the harder it becomes to unwind commercial dependencies across broadcasters, codes and betting sponsors.

Lobbying, soft diplomacy and the ticket tally

The ticket disclosures follow a broader stream of lobbying tied to ad regulation. Responsible Wagering Australia argued in an October 2024 letter to the prime minister that legal products must stay visible so consumers stick with regulated operators. The industry’s stance underscores the commercial stakes: advertising supports market share and reinforces code partnerships that deliver cash to sports and airtime to bookmakers. The AU$245,000 ticket analysis illustrates how the influence game plays out in public view through corporate boxes, premium seats and pregame networking, even as lawmakers debate whether those same brands should lose their primetime ad slots.

Independents have called the pattern “deeply concerning,” arguing that cumulative hospitality can soften resistance to industry arguments against a ban or favor partial measures over a clean phase-out. The politics are delicate: both major parties rely on relationships with sports and media sectors, which in turn benefit from betting sponsorships and ad spend. Each fresh disclosure places pressure on ministers to demonstrate that any final policy reflects public health evidence rather than proximity to corporate hosts.

Signals from cabinet and the crossbench

Inside government, Communications Minister Annika Wells has held talks with broadcasters, codes and bookmakers, but no decision has been announced. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has said caucus will determine the position and has pointed to BetStop as proof of progress. Still, signs suggest the window for a sweeping deal before the election is closing. As covered in our piece on Albanese holding firm as MPs push for a ban, an attempt by independent MP Andrew Wilkie to secure a conscience vote on a phase-out failed 85 to 14, underscoring the numbers challenge for reformers in the current parliament.

On the other side, crossbenchers and health advocates are trying to keep pressure on. The Greens plan to use the Senate to probe advertising practices and the adequacy of any compromise that falls short of a ban. Our reporting on renewed calls to follow through with a ban details concerns that a partial solution would leave major gaps — from in-stadium signage to broadcast integrations — that maintain visibility and keep younger audiences engaged with betting brands. That posture sets up a clear contrast if cabinet opts for restrictions that stop short of Murphy’s three-year path to total prohibition.

Competing priorities and the social media detour

The government’s high-profile push to restrict youth social media use has created a parallel debate about policy sequencing. Critics question why a sweeping social media crackdown moved faster than gambling ad reforms recommended by a bipartisan inquiry. That tension sharpened after reporters uncovered ties between the youth social media lobby group 36 Months and ad agency Finch, which has worked on campaigns for major betting firms. Our investigation into 36 Months’ links to a gambling ad company stops short of alleging direct lobbying on gambling policy, but the optics complicate the government’s narrative that it is prioritizing harm reduction in the most visible risk areas.

The sequencing matters because some in government have signaled the social media ban could reduce kids’ exposure to digital ads, implying a full gambling ad ban might be less urgent online. Reformers counter that television, stadiums and broadcast integrations remain potent channels and that kids do not live exclusively on social platforms. As our coverage of fresh pressure to hold the line on a ban notes, advocates want a whole-of-ecosystem approach rather than a digital-only fix.

The stakes for sport, media and voters

Any decisive shift on gambling advertising will ripple through sports, broadcasters and betting operators. For codes, a ban would force a rethink of sponsorship portfolios and could accelerate the search for alternative revenue. For networks, reduced ad spend could hit margins, at least in the short term, though substitution from other categories is possible. For operators, visibility constraints could harden market leaders with brand equity while raising acquisition costs for challengers.

Politically, the calculus is different. Public tolerance for saturation ads appears to be waning, and disclosures of corporate hospitality sharpen voter skepticism about who sets the rules. Taken together — the ticket ledger, the reform delay, cabinet caution outlined as Albanese holds firm and the renewed calls to follow through — they set the context for why hospitality headlines resonate. The question now is whether the government’s eventual response mirrors Murphy’s roadmap or lands on a narrower compromise that keeps the industry visible in Australia’s most-watched moments.