The timing could not have been more exquisite. Paul D Tonko, an eight-term member of the US House of Representatives, used Super Bowl day to announce a piece of legislation that could alter the face of sports betting Stateside by proposing a ban on all electronic and online advertising for the past time.
Advertising and betting industry executives in the corporate boxes in Arizona on Sunday must have been choking on their canapes when they saw alerts starting to pop up on their smartphones.
After all, 50 million Americans had just spent an estimated US$16bn wagering on the set piece of the sporting year.
However, according to the abacus rattlers on Wall Street and within London’s Square Mile, the proposed Tonko legislation, known formally as the Betting On Our Future Act, is unlikely to hinder the long-term performance of the industry in the US.
Indeed, the announcement by Flutter Entertainment PLC (LSE:FLTR), owner of America’s FanDuel online sportsbook, that it is planning a New York listing probably adds credence to that assessment. It certainly wouldn't be making such an announcement if stinky stuff had really hit the fan.
Jefferies provided some cursory analysis. It sees lower growth as the result of the ad ban, which would favour the larger players.
However, these big established sports betting businesses would likely be more profitable, the investment bank reckons, as they wouldn’t be spending huge piles of moolah on marketing. It is estimated that Flutter’s FanDuel ‘spaffed’ £1bn last year on marketing.
Perhaps a disincentive for the adoption of the Tinko Act is the tax take state to state would likely drop in the wake of an ad ban.