Own goal – University of Bristol report lacks credibility

A recent University of Bristol report examining gambling advertising practices during the English Premier League's opening weekend highlighted the growing debate over sports and gambling. The issue of ads during games came under particular scrutiny.

This article examines the University of Bristol's report, focusing on its findings, methodology, and tone. By exploring these issues in depth, we encourage a discussion on balancing industry interests and public health amidst the complexities of sports gambling advertising.

Who led this research into gambling advertising, and what was their approach?

The report, released in late September by the University of Bristol, was led by a team of researchers aiming to expose perceived regulatory failures in gambling marketing around Premier League games. While the report presents data on a sharp increase in gambling messages, its approach is heavily skewed by emotive language and a clear anti-gambling stance.

Rather than offering a balanced analysis, the report frames the issue as an outright failure of industry self-regulation, using terms like “out of control” and “wholly inadequate” to emphasise its point.

Although the report provides data to support its claims, the tone and language suggest a predetermined conclusion rather than a neutral investigation. The absence of industry engagement or exploration of potential improvements further highlights its one-sided perspective. To many readers this approach will undermine the report’s credibility. Prioritising colourful rhetoric over fostering a discussion about regulation and the advertising landscape serves no effective purpose.

The media release

In drawing attention to the research and report the University of Bristol circulated a media release entitled: Investigation exposing huge surge of gambling marketing at start of Premier League season prompts urgent call to kick ‘out of control’ industry into touch, on 27 September. It summarised key findings and used quotes from the report. The tone for the report was well and truly set:

“This new evidence shows how much the industry is out of control.” – Co-lead author Dr Raffaello Rossi, University of Bristol

“These statistics reveal the woeful inadequacies of industry self-regulation.” – Lord Foster of Bath, Chair of Peers for Gambling Reform

“This appalling evidence shows us that, as I warned previously, the industry could not be trusted to regulate itself.” – Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP, former Vice Chair of the Gambling Harms All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG)

As with the report itself the language used was emotive and overall lacked balance. The problem, specifically, with the media release is how many recipients would quote, verbatim, from it without context or balance.

What is the research measured against?

The research is full of statistics, such as the threefold increase in gambling messages during the Premier League’s opening weekend compared to the previous year. However, beyond comparing this season's data with last year's, the report lacks clarity on what standards or benchmarks these numbers are being measured against. There is no reference to any agreed-upon limits or guidelines established by the industry or regulators. 

With comparable statistics or data, it is easier to gauge whether the volume of advertising is genuinely excessive or simply part of normal market fluctuations. 

What is an acceptable level of gambling advertising messages?

The report focuses heavily on the dramatic increase but fails to explain what an acceptable level of gambling advertising might look like. In this context, it is easier to understand whether the industry has violated specific expectations or continued operating within existing frameworks—especially with many conversations around advertising regulations. 

The lack of established comparison targets leaves readers questioning what the research aims to prove beyond pointing out that advertising levels have increased. To improve the dialogue while being constructive, the research should have engaged the industry in defining responsible advertising thresholds instead of presenting data in isolation.

The tone of the report

The tone of the University of Bristol’s report on gambling advertising during the Premier League's opening weekend is strikingly alarmist and biased. Far from adopting a balanced, objective stance, the language used throughout the report appears designed to provoke a strong emotional reaction, painting the gambling industry in a consistently negative light. 

Terms like “out of control,” “wholly inadequate,” and “woeful inadequacies” litter the text, giving the impression of a crisis requiring an immediate response. This choice of words reveals the bias and removes any meaningful discussion on regulation or advertising practices. 

Alarmist, biased language

The report repeatedly uses exaggerated language to underscore its claims, portraying the gambling industry's advertising efforts as dangerously unchecked. Phrases like “failure to protect the public” and “regulators are toothless” are included to create a sense of moral urgency.

While gambling advertising is undoubtedly essential, such language undermines the report's credibility by focusing on sensationalism rather than presenting a balanced, fact-driven narrative. The lack of neutral language makes it difficult to engage in constructive dialogue, especially when the issue is presented in such uncompromising terms.

Assumptions

Throughout the report, there is a heavy reliance on assumptions rather than evidence-based conclusions. The sharp rise in gambling-related messages during the Premier League’s opening weekend is presented as problematic without context or any agreed-upon benchmark for what is an acceptable level of advertising. What’s more, in terms of comparisons, it focuses only on the research the University of Bristol did the previous year.

The authors assume that the increase in ads is dangerous, but they fail to provide a compelling argument linking exposure to gambling marketing with actual harm. Instead, they rely on the presumption that any increase in exposure automatically correlates with an increased risk, particularly to vulnerable groups such as children, without backing this up with precise data.

Lack of balance

A significant shortcoming of the report is the lack of balance. The research does not attempt to engage with the gambling industry or regulatory bodies or consider potential improvements arising from dialogue. Instead, the report aggressively frames the issue as a binary battle between a “dangerous” sector and public safety. 

This polarising narrative shuts down opportunities for collaboration, where meaningful changes could be made by working with the industry it criticises. The absence of alternative perspectives or potential solutions diminishes the report’s value as a foundation for constructive regulatory reform.

Is the report trying to help or hinder the industry?

The University of Bristol report raises important questions about its intentions regarding the gambling industry. Rather than fostering an open dialogue, the article adopts a different stance, presenting its findings as definitive proof that the industry is failing to self-regulate. Phrases like “the industry must do this” reflect a lack of willingness to engage constructively with stakeholders, positioning the report more as an indictment of the industry rather than a call for improvement through collaboration.

Context lacking

The absence of a discussion, or even, seemingly a desire to engage, diminishes the report's potential effectiveness or dims the light towards what is trying to be achieved. A constructive critique should invite representatives to contribute to the conversation, especially regarding the data and statistics presented. Instead of simply highlighting the sharp increase in gambling marketing, such as the statistic and quote “growing from 10,999 messages to 29,145 over the span of a year,” the report could have engaged the industry to explore the reasons behind these numbers and their implications.

Engaging with the gambling industry on statistical evidence would allow for a more nuanced discussion about advertising thresholds, responsible marketing practices, and the measures that could genuinely protect consumers – especially vulnerable groups such as children and those with gambling issues.

In conclusion

While the University of Bristol report presents some interesting and even concerning statistics about the rise in gambling advertising during the Premier League's opening weekend, its reliance on assumptions and overly negative framing ultimately undermines it. 

The emotive language and alarmist tone do little to foster rational or constructive dialogue. Instead of offering a balanced perspective or meaningfully engaging with the gambling industry, the report leans heavily on criticism without proposing clear solutions or benchmarks. To truly address concerns around gambling advertising, a more measured, collaborative approach is needed—one that encourages discussion rather than shutting it down. And one which presents a lot more in the way of comparable data.