The AFL has admitted its integrity system for online gambling is seriously deficient and struggles to identity whether players, coaches and staff are using inside information to manipulate betting markets, in breach of their contracts.
Leaked documents seen by Guardian Australia reveal executives have expressed alarm about an “unprecedented” increase in “integrity risks” posed by the wagering industry, which has exploded in popularity since the pandemic with more than 80 bookmakers now taking bets on its games.
The documents reveal the AFL lacks “visibility across a broad cross section of betting turnover” and only sees the “tip of the iceberg”. It has also raised concern about several “bottlenecks” and “blindspots” that have prevented it from quickly detecting if players, coaches and staff are betting on games or sharing sensitive information.
These concerns, which have not been spoken about publicly, have been used by the AFL to justify a campaign to seize an even bigger share of the money Australians gamble on its games. This is despite sustained criticism for its close association with the wagering sector and its gambling advertising being viewed by impressionable children.
The AFL’s proposed solution is to completely overhaul its integrity framework and force more than 80 bookmakers to provide gambling data to a new centralised database, managed by an external AI company, which would allow it to detect suspicious transactions in near real time.
It’s an expensive fix, and the AFL wants bookmakers to pay for it.
An email outlining this plan, sent by the AFL’s legal team at the height of summer, has triggered a bitter fight over gambling revenue, a flurry of legal letters, hard-ball negotiation tactics, threats to call in the regulator, exasperation from public health officials, and a broader questioning of the AFL’s social licence.
‘Increase in integrity threats’
A December 2024 internal document seen by Guardian Australia reveals the AFL has raised concern about “mounting integrity threats” posed by the gambling sector that are “evolving at an unprecedented rate”.
The league has cited three examples that demonstrate “shortcomings in the AFL’s current integrity monitoring framework”. The first involves the case of an AFL umpire allegedly providing advance notice of outcomes to people who place bets.
“The AFL relied on one bookmaker to identify the betting of interest and the connection with a specific umpire, with bets of interest only flagged due to a significant loss being made on the market,” the document said.
“The AFL then had to request further information from all wage service providers, substantially delaying investigation and mitigating steps.”
According to the AFL, bookmakers have been too slow to provide transaction data when requested to do so. The information supplied over email must be cleaned and collated before it can be analysed by integrity teams, creating further delays.
The AFL also referred to a player allegedly providing inside information about games to someone who placed five bets with different bookmakers.
The player had been told to start his next game in a different position from his usual one. This information was not public and the betting markets did not reflect it. The gambler placed bets on him kicking the first goal of the game.
Another example cited involved a health professional at an AFLW team, who is not allowed to gamble on matches. The document describes them betting from their partner’s account, based on non-public information about injuries. The bets were small.
“Within existing integrity monitoring framework, the wage service provider does not report the activity due to the size of the bets, and their own checks into the partner do not identify any links between her and any AFL player/official,” the document said.
The AFL’s solution to these problems is to create a centralised database that ingests every gambling transaction from bookmakers. This would include gambler names. AI software would then identify suspicious transactions.
The new system is described as a way for the AFL to “keep up with the increase in digital betting”, which it is partly responsible for, having promoted betting ads at its stadiums and on social media, while listing odds on its app.
The AFL did not respond to a request for comment.
‘Unprecedented and unnecessary’
Many large bookmakers are strongly opposed to the AFL’s proposed database and have declined to sign up. They describe it as an overreach and raise concerns about personal information being misused or compromised.
One wagering source, who declined to be named so they could speak freely, said the new monitoring system would be “an unprecedented and unnecessary intervention” that would cause “more problems” than it solved.
after newsletter promotion
Transaction data sent to the new system would include a gambler’s full name, date of birth, full address, email address, home and mobile phone numbers, and the volume of their bets.
Internal AFL documents acknowledged the database would contain “sensitive” personal information, but stressed “additional security measures would be implemented over and above normal data security controls”.
Others in the wagering industry have noted that no similar database exists for financial crime agencies to wade through non-suspicious transactions in the search for money laundering, corruption or terrorism financing.
Multiple sources have told Guardian Australia that the AFL has decided to postpone the introduction of the new system, in the face of strong opposition from bookmakers.
‘This agreement must be kept confidential’
While unknown to most fans, the AFL has a financial stake in its fans’ gambling habits. It receives a cut of each bet placed on its games, or a percentage of a gambling company’s turnover.
This arrangement, along with broadcast revenue and ticket sales, has become the engine that powers the AFL’s revenue stream. It was introduced by the league’s former CEO Andrew Demetriou, who watched gambling companies cash in on the sport. This money has supported the AFL’s integrity efforts ever since.
Less than two months before round one, the AFL wrote to gambling companies outlining its plan to receive a minimum $20,000 share of revenue each year. It had already extended consultation in December and demanded an answer by the end of February.
This minimum fee would apply to all bookmakers, regardless of how much money they generated.
A proposed agreement sent to bookmakers required them “keep confidential and not allow, make or cause any disclosure” related to “the terms of this agreement” without the written consent of the AFL.
More than 30 smaller bookmakers concerned by the increase in fees engaged the law firm Pat Brown Legal to seek a better deal.
Last week, after negotiations, the AFL offered a revised offer. Instead of the annual $20,000 minimum payment, smaller bookmakers would be charged at least $3,000 in 2025, $5,000 in 2026 and $7,000 in 2027. But some believed this was still too high.
While all parties believe the impasse can be resolved, Pat Brown Legal has flagged the potential for Victoria’s gambling regulator to act as an independent arbiter. Court challenges and an appeal for ministerial intervention are also possible options.
The AFL Players Association, which has warned players are being treated as gambling products that cause community harm, is also following the negotiations. It continues to push for players to get a bigger share of profits made on their performance.
Public health experts, including the Australian Medical Association, believe the AFL’s push for a bigger share of wagering revenue shows it relationship with the gambling industry is firmly entrenched.
The former AFL commissioner Colin Carter says that must change. “Surveys show that football fans resent the massive levels of gambling advertising and some AFL clubs have even exited their very profitable pokies businesses because they don’t fit their values,” he told Guardian Australia.
“But the AFL is silent on this one and even seems opposed to restricting the level of advertising, which is terribly disappointing.”
The AFL season begins on Thursday. The stakes have been raised.
Article by:Source: Henry Belot
