Gambling ads had ‘significant’ impact on betting activity during 2022 World Cup

The study, published in the journal Addictive Behavior Reports, found that participants were 22-33% more likely to bet and bet more often (16-24%) when viewing on a channel with gambling ads. Given these results, the authors suggest that the UK’s existing restrictions on gambling advertising may be inadequate. 

In an article published by Sheffield on Phys.org, lead author and research associate Ellen McGrane elaborated on the findings.

“These television ads may be acting as powerful triggers during live games, encouraging betting even among people who had no prior intention to gamble.”

Notably, gambling advertising in the UK is already subject to the “whistle-to-whistle” ban. The rule restricts betting ads to the pre- and post-game periods. From 5 minutes before kick-off until 5 minutes after the final whistle, the only gambling ads permitted are for lottery and bingo. 

That’s not the case in the US, where the states set advertising restrictions that are often more lenient. Particularly true, considering the recent popularity of sport-focused prediction markets, which typically operate (and advertise) outside the confines of state law.

Ads shown to increase overall gambling activity

As the authors point out, previous research has found gambling advertisements to be a prime reason for opening a sports betting account, a trigger to gamble, and a source of craving.

Their goal with this study was to “fill an important evidence gap” to identify causality in a real-world setting. 

Specifically, they aimed to answer the research question:

“Are a higher number of football bets placed during the game (‘in-play’) when a live game is televised on ITV (television gambling adverts) compared to BBC (no television gambling adverts)?”

To accomplish this, 400 out of 1000 potential participants — researchers invited men aged 18 to 45 with the highest football [soccer] gambling frequency to take part. In total, 396 provided consent and completed the baseline survey before the study commenced. 

Of those, 92% of participants completed the study’s daily betting surveys, yielding a final sample of 365.

“One of our key findings,” said McGrane, “was that this advertising doesn’t simply shift people between betting platforms; it increases the overall amount of gambling taking place. “

Despite the non-representative sample, the authors argue that the study’s “rigorous causal design” yields relevant policy insights.

As noted in the article:

“Although current UK industry-led restrictions on television advertising have reduced the

frequency of such advertising during the restricted (‘whistle-to-whistle’) period, these findings demonstrate a short-term behavioural response to television advertising, highlighting potential shortcomings of the restrictions, particularly for the higher-risk groups sampled.”

Tighter regulations may lessen public harm

As with most studies, the authors acknowledge several limitations, including the limited generalisability of their findings and the potential for recall bias.

Still, McGrane reiterated that the study’s results indicate that further advertising restrictions may be necessary to adequately protect public health.

“A substantial body of evidence shows that when gambling participation rises at a population level, gambling-related harm also increases, suggesting that the current restrictions in place may not be effective enough.

Despite the scale of this issue, advertising rules are not being strengthened. Tighter regulation of gambling advertising during live sport may be needed, particularly ahead of highly televised events such as the World Cup, to better protect those most at risk.”