THERE is no surer thing than a promotion for gambling appearing in almost any advertising space connected to sport.
The alignment between athletics and games of chance has always been there, but it has perhaps never been as egregious as in recent years.
It is perhaps unsurprising, then, that a parliamentary inquiry has recommended banning all ads for online gambling in a final report released on Wednesday.
Their report found the industry was "manipulating an impressionable and vulnerable audience", making 31 recommendations.
Sport is not the first phase of the plan - which would instead aim at school pick-up and drop-off times, as well as news and current affairs coverage.
The ads would then be banned during sports broadcasts and for one hour on either side of matches.
In-stadium advertising, including ads on player uniforms, is also in the crosshairs.
The inquiry's chair, Labor MP Peta Murphy, said online gambling harm resembled a public health issue and the response should match that.
Other proposed measures include a harm reduction levy and identity verification prior to wagers.
"Australians lose the most to online gambling because we have a weak and fragmented regulatory framework, which places all the onus for reducing harm onto the person who gambles," Ms Murphy said.
"Gambling advertising is grooming children and young people to gamble and encourages riskier behaviour. The torrent of advertising is inescapable."
The report offers a stark picture of how much more can be done to mitigate the harms linked to pervasive gambling. For some, though, there are benefits to gambling's omnipresence.
Sponsorship drives betting's sport links, while Free TV Australia chief executive Bridget Fair described the proposal to prohibit gambling ads as a knee-jerk reaction.
"The committee's proposed ban is based on a fundamentally flawed premise that the advertising market is some kind of magic pudding," she said.
"Reductions in advertising revenue in the current economic and competitive environment can only result in less funding for Australian content."
This newspaper documented, both quantitatively and anecdotally, how the COVID lockdowns shifted gambling habits. Is a similiar circuit breaker for problem gamblers too much to ask?
Once, cigarette advertising was considered par for the course.
Public good arguments eventually won out, and traditional tobacco is now virtually invisible in advertising.
The media landscape has of course changed, as has the gambling one, but there is still merit in questioning whether we can roll the dice on a problem as insidious as problem gambling.
The choice remains open to those who choose it, but for those battling an addiction, their odds of moving on likely improve if there's less chance they'll be tempted.
Can we afford to hedge our bets?
