Big Debate: Should US operators refuse to sign marketing deals involving college sports?    

Yes

Chris Grove, partner at Eilers & Krejcik Gaming

College students represent a tricky demographic for the betting industry. Much of the population is underage and nearly all of the population is under-experienced when it comes to gambling. In that environment, it’s inevitable you end up exposing, perhaps aggressively exposing, gambling to large numbers of consumers that simply do not benefit from that exposure.

It is also important to remember that college campuses are unique environments that can attract a potentially problematic focus from the media. Campuses are inherently political, and there’s a long history of pushback against commercialisation, like with credit cards, for example.

College-focused marketing also provides a ready-made hook for critics of gambling, who can – with reasonable justification – ask why a campus full of young people under 21 are seeing not just gambling adverts, but gambling ads that appear to come with the tacit or even explicit support of the school itself.

It is not in any way radical to wonder aloud if such an arrangement is in keeping with the spirit and mission of an educational institution.

Finally, proximity of gambling to the student body is one thing. Proximity to student athletes is another, especially in a world where the roles, responsibilities and commercial opportunities surrounding student athletes are changing in ways that are meaningful and unprecedented.

Layering gambling marketing on top of the collegiate sports experience risks a scandal at worst, and at best, provides a ready avenue of attack not only from critics but also from policymakers seeking to restrict or eliminate legal betting on college games – an outcome that puts the legal sports betting market at a significant disadvantage to illegal operators.

In short, it’s not unreasonable for the likes of FanDuel to weigh the risk and reward associated with college sports-focused marketing and conclude that the former clearly outweighs the latter.

No

Rony Vexelman, VP marketing at Optimove

Over the past few years, college sports have undergone significant changes that have redefined them. Maybe the most prominent example is how only a few years back, it was, unfortunately, unthinkable that a college player could financially benefit from their success like professional players do. Today, it is a given.

Similarly, now that professional sports teams are signing deals with operators, their college counterparts should follow. If safe, rules can be set in advance. Such a situation would be a win for both sides.

College programmes would have additional resources to improve their infrastructure and support for athlete students. The operators would have access to some of the most dedicated fans in the world. The influx of cash from these sponsorships for colleges could be a game-changer. However, it would only be so if those funds are secured for campus improvements, student-athlete development and enhanced safety at campuses and their sports programmes.

For operators, marketing deals would provide them with enhanced brand awareness and stickiness that will be difficult to rival elsewhere. However, the safeguards that need to be put in place for responsible gambling practices must be consistent and encompassing. If operators cannot provide proof of acting responsibly, then all bets should be off.

For these partnerships to succeed, they must be safe for college students. Operators will need to ensure any bettor is of betting age, proactively identify unhealthy behaviours and create impactful responsible gaming programmes that are readily available and actively publicised across their channels.

Without these signed partnerships, regulation will end up being less stringent and, as a result, damaging for those following college sports. An agreed-upon format that ensures bettor safety and places the onus on operators to conform to set rules of engagement would provide the safest way forward.