Former AFL players accused of promoting illegal online casinos
Two former Australian Football League players are facing scrutiny after promoting an illegal offshore online casino to their social media audiences.
Former Brisbane Lions players Mitch Robinson and Rhys Mathieson were identified as promoting Vegastars through social media posts, including a giveaway tied to the operator.
Despite having legalized online sports wagering, online casino gambling is prohibited in Australia.
Regulators and industry groups say the promotion of unlicensed gambling services presents risks to consumers, with Tim Costello, a representative of the Alliance for Gambling Reform, calling the promotion “outrageous” and “utterly irresponsible.”
Responsible Wagering Australia, which represents bookies like Bet365 and PointsBet, estimates that Australians lose AU$3.9 billion (US$2.8 billion)1 AUD = 0.7171 USD
2026-04-17Powered by CMG CurrenShift every year to illegal offshore gambling sites, with the unregulated market growing significantly faster than the licensed sector.
The country’s online gambling regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, said it is engaging with influencers to warn them about potential violations. Individuals promoting illegal gambling services may face civil penalties, including fines that can reach into the millions of dollars, depending on the severity of the breach.
The regulator also stated that website blocking remains a key enforcement tool. Since 2019, over 1,500 illegal sites have been blocked, though regulators say that operators often create mirror sites to bypass restrictions.
Verticals:
Sectors:
Topics:
Dig Deeper
Related stories
The Backstory
What’s driving the new flashpoint over offshore casinos
The dust-up over former Australian Football League players promoting an unlicensed online casino sits at the center of a widening clash between social media–driven marketing and a regulatory regime straining to keep up. Australia permits online sports wagering but bans online casino products, a split that has created a lucrative gray zone for offshore operators courting local audiences. Regulators say the risks are clear: unlicensed platforms operate outside Australian consumer protections, and promotions can mislead users into thinking the sites are legitimate. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has leaned on website blocking and penalties to curb the trade, but operators frequently spin up mirror domains to slip past enforcement.
The momentum has been building around major sporting tentpoles, where offshore brands exploit massive attention to lure bettors. Earlier this year, watchdogs flagged a flurry of unauthorized branding tied to tennis’s grand slam in Melbourne. One unlicensed casino ran giveaways featuring tournament imagery and even offered premium seats, drawing thousands of interactions across social channels — a case that crystallized how easily offshore operators can hijack marquee events and online fan communities to build reach. ACMA has confirmed it is moving to block access to at least one of the sites involved, while also investigating influencer-led promotions that amplified the offers. The regulator has previously noted that blocking is just one tool and that more systemic measures, such as payment interference, could bite harder.
That backdrop helps explain why social posts from prominent athletes are drawing sharper scrutiny. Content that looks like lifestyle or fan engagement can, in practice, be a funnel into illegal casinos, especially when giveaways and branded assets blur lines of legitimacy. Consumer harm advocates argue that each high-profile post normalizes an unregulated category the law explicitly prohibits.
Offshore tactics surge around major sporting stages
The pattern has been especially pronounced during high-visibility tournaments. Reporting on tennis’s slam season showed at least a handful of illegal sites using event logos, player imagery or themed bonuses to capture attention, with another cluster running promos timed to match play. In one case, an unlicensed casino leveraged the Australian Open’s cachet to entice users with prize packages, despite having no affiliation with the tournament. ACMA said it would order internet providers to block the site and was reviewing other operators and influencer tie-ins. The trade group for licensed bookmakers warned that the brazen use of official marks and giveaways could falsely signal legitimacy to casual fans, underscoring gaps between on-paper enforcement and real-world marketing on social platforms. Read more on how illegal gambling sites piggybacked on the Australian Open.
The tennis episode mirrored a broader shift: offshore brands are increasingly targeting communities where betting culture and sports fandom intersect — a playbook that overlaps with athlete and influencer networks. As enforcement tightens on traditional ad inventory, social posts, livestream integrations and micro-influencer campaigns have become cheaper and harder to police. That’s the environment in which former professional players with sizable followings can become lucrative conduits for offshore casinos, whether through giveaways, discount codes or seemingly innocuous shout-outs.
Licensed bookmakers face their own credibility test
The parallel debate inside the regulated market turns on whether legal operators are doing enough to curb harm while maintaining the commercial relationships that fuel Australian sport. Sportsbet, the country’s largest online bookmaker, has taken heat for promoting expanded same-game multi products on the AFL’s website after retreating from similar ads on free-to-air TV. The digital placements do not break current rules, but reform advocates and lawmakers say the move shows why voluntary restraint is fragile and patchy. Calls to accelerate a tighter ad regime have followed, with critics arguing that self-policing cannot square the incentives. Details are in our coverage of how Sportsbet’s multi-bet ads on the AFL site stirred fresh backlash.
The optics matter: when fans see saturated messaging around complex bet types on official league properties, it blurs lines between sport and wagering and risks deepening normalcy around higher-harm products. For regulators, that proximity complicates messaging about illegal offshore platforms, since both legal and illegal promotions compete for the same attention during the same events.
Cutting stadium signage while doubling down online
Sensing political pressure, some licensed operators are recalibrating the visibility of their brands in live sport. Sportsbet agreed to forgo signage and branding at AFL-owned Marvel Stadium and the Melbourne Cricket Ground as part of a long-term league partnership. The company said the move is part of a multi-year plan to reduce the prominence of wagering ads around live sport. But the agreement preserved the most valuable assets: exclusivity over the wagering category, prime digital placements and first rights around broadcast inventory. In practice, that means less logo clutter on venue facades but continued dominance across screens where most engagement now happens. The deal underscores how rights holders and bookmakers are reshaping inventory to meet the spirit — if not always the letter — of likely reforms. Dive deeper into Sportsbet’s decision to drop stadium branding in its AFL pact.
This repositioning has implications for the offshore fight. As regulated marketing shifts from physical venues to online environments, it competes more directly with illegal promotions. That raises the stakes for consistent ad standards and enforcement across digital channels, where users are bombarded by content with similar production values regardless of legality.
Streaming loopholes and the ad rules under review
Regulators are also wrestling with platform boundaries that have muddied wagering ad rules. ACMA has opened an inquiry into whether Disney+ breached gambling advertising restrictions by running betting spots during ESPN simulcasts on the streaming service. ESPN’s pay-TV channels have had exemptions tied to audience share thresholds, but the arrival of those feeds on a mass-market streamer has raised questions about where the old rules end and new ones should begin. Disney says the simulcast complies with current regulations and points to parental controls, while ACMA notes the legal exemptions were crafted for licensed subscription television services identical to the broadcast feed. The probe could set a precedent for how streaming platforms are treated as sports rights and ad inventory migrate online. Read our report on ACMA’s investigation into Disney+ gambling ads.
The outcome matters because offshore operators thrive in regulatory seams. If streaming standards fall out of step with broadcast rules, it creates confusion for consumers and enforcement agencies — and more room for illegal brands to blend in.
Regional signals: pageants, policing and platform sponsors
Australia’s crackdown is unfolding alongside parallel enforcement in Southeast Asia, where authorities are targeting promotions that launder legitimacy through popular culture. Thai police launched a probe into the Miss Universe 2025 pageant after contestants were allegedly linked to online casino promotions while in Thailand — activity that is illegal under local law. Organizers distanced themselves from the sponsor at issue, but the episode highlights how brand tie-ups, product placement and social posts can push gambling into mainstream events that attract global audiences. The case mirrors Australia’s concerns: promotions embedded in high-profile entertainment can mislead consumers and outpace oversight. See how Thai authorities raided the Miss Universe team over alleged online casino promotions.
Together, these threads show why the latest controversy over former AFL players promoting an offshore casino is bigger than a single post. Enforcement is chasing a moving target across sports, entertainment and streaming. Licensed bookmakers are trimming visible footprints while maximizing digital reach. Offshore operators are exploiting every gap — from influencer giveaways to event branding — to grow in the shadows of a legal market. The next phase will hinge on whether regulators can align rules across platforms, tighten penalties for paid promotions and harden financial pipes to illegal sites without undermining consumer migration to safer, regulated products.
