Broadcasters Ask MA Lawmakers To Ditch Sports Betting Advertising Ban

Massachusetts broadcasters are informing lawmakers on the Legislature’s sports betting conference committee about the potential adverse effects that an in-game sports betting advertisement ban could impose on their industry.

In order to prevent children from being exposed to sports betting advertisements, the Massachusetts Senate incorporated a whistle-to-whistle ban on TV and radio ads within their sports betting bill.

According to Jim Smith, the Massachusetts Broadcasters Association’s counsel, the prohibition presents numerous logistical, legal, rational, and practical challenges.

Smith continued:

The recent legislation passed by the Senate poses a significant issue for us. The bill does not include any provisions to restrict advertising, which means that individuals who wish to advertise will resort to social media platforms. It is worth noting that the younger demographic, specifically those under 21, are more inclined to be active on social media.

Ban could hurt small Massachusetts companies

In the commonwealth, the Massachusetts Broadcasters Association stands for 98% of the total radio and TV stations.

Smith argues that the Senate restrictions stated in H 3993 would not effectively put an end to sports betting advertising. Instead, these restrictions would simply result in a transfer of advertisements from local radio and TV stations to major tech companies like Apple, Google, and Facebook.

Smith stated that although the dollars will indeed be utilized, they will not be utilized within Massachusetts. Consequently, this unintentional outcome negatively impacts the local news and broadcasting sector. It is commonly believed that broadcasting mainly involves huge national corporations, but in reality, a majority of radio stations are small-scale and localized.

Smith pointed out that in the last two decades, Massachusetts broadcasters have experienced a decline of approximately 50% in their total revenue, primarily due to the shift of advertisements to online platforms, which now constitute the sole source of radio revenue.

A multitude of small, locally-based radio stations across the state have been highlighted by Smith for airing Patriots and Red Sox games.

Smith expressed concern about the potential consequences, stating, “If they are unable to sell those ads, it would greatly impact them. I am uncertain about the Senate’s intentions, but it undeniably damages local broadcasting. Our capacity to inform the public and engage in community initiatives heavily relies on revenue generated from advertisements.”

Can’t stop national advertisements

According to Smith, the main issue with the ban lies in its impracticality for implementation.

According to him, when a local Fox TV station airs an NFL game, the majority of the advertisements, specifically 95%, are national ads supplied by Fox. It is mandatory for the local stations to run these national ads as per their contractual obligations.

Smith questioned whether Fox 25 in Boston had the capability of blocking out advertisements. He expressed doubt, as he had never witnessed such a feat before. Smith pondered if the channel would simply display a black screen instead. He emphasized that Fox 25, under their contractual agreement, is obligated to broadcast all elements accompanying a football game, including advertisements.

Massachusetts lacks the authority to prevent a Massachusetts-based sports betting company, such as DraftKings, from running advertisements with a national broadcaster.

Smith explained that when DraftKings purchases a national advertisement, they are paying for it to reach a nationwide audience, without any exclusion of major metropolitan areas.

If the Senate language prevails, DraftKings, being a local company, will not be permitted to support local broadcasters.

Smith argues that allowing national ads to be aired would undermine the purpose of the language, as it would exclude only the local population from receiving financial benefits.

Radio signals cross state lines

In addition, Smith observed that radio stations located in New Hampshire, New York, and Rhode Island provide sports content that extends into the state of Massachusetts.

It is practically impossible to restrict the radio signal carrying in-game advertisements from crossing the border.

Regardless of whether the advertisements are from other states or on a national level, it is impossible to prevent sports betting advertisements from entering Massachusetts.

Smith explained:

The Senate’s approval of this matter on the Senate floor may have overlooked various crucial aspects. If the entire nation adopts this approach, the outcome could be significantly different. The truth is, border communities lack control, as do the rest of us over national broadcasts. The allocated funds will still be utilized, but Massachusetts will not benefit from it. It would be a grave error if this scenario were to unfold.

Ban would be challenged in court

Smith anticipates that if Massachusetts does indeed implement an advertising ban, it will encounter numerous legal obstacles. He foresees broadcasters and sports betting operators taking the lead in contesting it.

Smith expressed his belief that if the bill is approved, it will undoubtedly face legal challenges. He highlighted the numerous inquiries and legal concerns that arise from it. Smith emphasized that DraftKings possesses the constitutional right to freedom of speech, and if they can afford to purchase advertisements, they should be entitled to exercise those rights. Additionally, Smith clarified that DraftKings does not offer any illicit products.

Optimism ban doesn’t make final bill

Smith has communicated with every member of the conference committee regarding the detrimental impact the in-game ban would have on local Massachusetts broadcasters. According to him, the House members responded positively, as anticipated. Additionally, Sen. Patrick O’Connor is in favor of Smith’s cause.

On Thursday, the committee convened for their inaugural meeting, commencing with a brief public session that lasted only a few minutes. Following this, the committee transitioned into an executive session to facilitate confidential discussions.

In addition to his conversation with Sen. Michael Rodrigues, Smith had a discussion with Sen. Eric Lesser as well. On the Senate floor, Rodrigues expressed his support for the ban. Smith is hopeful that his efforts are gaining traction with the legislators.

Smith stated that the Legislature is inclined to be supportive in this matter and does not see a justification to impose penalties on small local broadcasters. He expressed confidence that our arguments hold up under examination, as it is difficult to dispute the fact that gaming companies will not advertise.

Ultimately, Smith remains optimistic that rational thinking will prevail and the bill will not include the advertising ban.

Smith stated that their state is not the pioneer in legalizing sports betting. They argued that in other states without whistle-to-whistle bans, there is no evidence of any negative consequences. Therefore, there is no logical justification or public interest in implementing such a ban. They further explained that this ban fails to align with their goals because social media platforms will still circulate the advertisements, and practically every individual between the ages of 6 and 21 possesses the ability to navigate an iPhone.