Sports Betting Advertising Ban Draws Criticism From Massachusetts Teams

The broadcasting and sportsbook operators, along with Massachusetts professional sports teams, have come together to request lawmakers to exclude an advertising ban from the sports betting legislation.

The teams have written a letter to the members of the conference committee on Massachusetts sports betting, urging the lawmakers to decline the Senate’s suggestion of a complete prohibition on advertising during game telecasts. Additionally, they have requested the rejection of various other advertisement limitations outlined in the Senate bill.

During the National Council of Legislators from Gaming States conference in Boston, David Friedman, executive vice president of legal and government affairs for the Boston Red Sox, mentioned the opposition to the advertising ban. He then provided a copy of the letter to Play MA.

In May, when the Senate approved sports betting legislation, it also included a ban on in-game advertising.

The letter reads:

The ad restrictions imposed currently are impractical, unnecessary, and excessively burdensome, and they also violate the constitution. No other governing body has implemented similar measures, and unfortunately, this could inadvertently harm the legal sports betting market while allowing illegal operators to thrive and attract customers in Massachusetts.

By July 31, it is imperative for Massachusetts lawmakers to take action on sports betting legislation.

Teams call advertising ban unconstitutional

The teams have urged the conference committee to dismiss three advertising restrictions that are part of the Senate bill. Below are the outlined restrictions and the teams’ rebuttal to them:

• To the extent possible, there should be a restriction on television and online streaming advertisements during live broadcasts of sporting events. This ban would apply five minutes prior to the start of the event and five minutes after its conclusion.

Banning all sports betting advertising during game broadcasts is an unprecedented measure that no other state has implemented. This overly broad and excessively restrictive action would infringe upon the First Amendment. While the intention may be to prevent minors and individuals with gambling issues from engaging in sports betting, this measure lacks the necessary precision to effectively achieve those objectives and instead imposes a significant burden on protected speech.

• Advertising, marketing, and branding through television, radio, or internet should be prohibited, as much as possible, unless it can be reasonably anticipated that at least 85 percent of the audience is aged 21 years or older. This determination should be based on reliable and current data regarding the composition of the audience.

The idea that there exists dependable and current data on the age of individuals who consume contemporary digital content is simply not true. If any serious efforts are made to enforce this requirement, it is highly likely that lengthy disagreements will arise regarding the trustworthiness of the data being used for the specific circumstances.

• The commission has implemented a prohibition on all types of advertising, marketing, or branding that is deemed to interfere with a viewer’s ability to observe, listen, or fully engage in a sporting event, whether attending in person or remotely.

Determining whether a specific type of ad disrupts a viewer is an extremely challenging task due to the complete vagueness and subjectivity of this ad restriction, making its implementation virtually impossible.

Who sent the MA sports betting letter and to whom?

Addressed to the six conference committee members, the letter is dated May 25.

• Senators Michael Rodrigues, Eric Lesser, and Patrick O’Connor
• Reps. Aaron Michlewitz, Jerald Parisella, and David Muradian

CC’d on the email were Gov. Charlie Baker, Senate President Karen Spilka, and House Speaker Ron Mariano.

The letter was endorsed by the five professional sports teams of Massachusetts and the PGA Tour.

• The CEO of the Boston Bruins (NHL) is Charlie Jacobs.
• The president of the Boston Celtics in the NBA is Rich Gotham.
• The president and CEO of the Boston Red Sox (MLB) is Sam Kennedy.
• Jonathan Kraft, the president of the New England Patriots in the NFL.
• The president of the New England Revolution (MLS) is Brian Bilello.
• PGA Tour’s chief legal officer is Leonard Brown Jr.

Senate reasoning behind advertising ban

The one responsible for introducing the advertising ban was Rodrigues, the chair of the conference committee in the Senate.

Rodrigues stated during his Senate floor speech that the purpose of the ban was to prevent individuals below the legal sports betting age of 21 from being exposed to the commercials.

Similar to the regulations in Europe, the bill proposes a whistle-to-whistle ban on television advertising. It aims to restrict advertisements on both television and online platforms, specifically targeting audiences where less than 85% are 21 years old or older. This approach aligns with the advertising limitations already implemented in the cannabis legislation.

The teams responded in the letter by offering a counterargument.

We acknowledge the importance of addressing the issues of underage gambling and problem gambling, as they are significant concerns. However, we believe that the policies established by the league and the provisions outlined in both the House and Senate bills, which we fully endorse, can effectively tackle these concerns without encroaching upon protected speech or establishing unmanageable administrative obstacles.

The teams consider the language in the House bill to be reasonable measures for advertising guidelines.

O’Connor and Parisella, two members of the conference committee, had previously voiced their opposition to the advertising ban during discussions with Play MA.

Advertising is legal operator’s edge over black market

The main objective of legalizing sports betting is to guide customers away from illegal offshore sportsbooks and towards legal, regulated operators. However, preventing sports betting operators from advertising during games undermines this goal for teams.

According to the teams, television advertising provides a significant competitive edge for regulated sportsbooks compared to offshore operators who must rely on less regulated marketing channels. They acknowledge concerns about an excessive number of sports betting ads during games but argue that a total ban on such ads during broadcasts would be detrimental rather than beneficial.

According to the letter, they stated that the ban also seems to prevent the inclusion of responsible gambling messages during games. The letter notes that sports leagues encourage operators to promote advertisements that prioritize responsible gambling.

Ban could hurt TV deals for teams

In addition, sports teams expressed their concern that an advertising ban would negatively impact their revenue, even if they are not directly involved in sports wagering. (The letter also requested special consideration for sports betting licenses.)

According to Freidman, if an advertising ban is implemented, it may result in a reduction of the funds teams receive from broadcasting deals. Additionally, broadcasters are actively advocating against the ban.

According to Friedman, he believes that the industry’s success would be negatively impacted if it were to initiate. He argues that it diminishes the worth of TV broadcast rights and has a disproportionate negative effect on teams. Additionally, he asserts that it may also be unconstitutional.