It is understandable that many Canadians feel uncomfortable with the volume of sports betting advertising today. For some viewers, the concentration of ads can feel excessive and intrusive. Concerns about exposure to youth are legitimate and need to be taken seriously.

The question is not whether those concerns are valid, it is about who is best positioned to address them quickly and effectively.

Sports betting in Canada already has a referee on the field. Provincial regulators have been setting and enforcing rules for decades, and they know the realities of the game because they have been responsible for it since the 1985 federal–provincial agreement that put gaming oversight squarely in provincial hands. That agreement noted that the federal government would “refrain from re-entering the field of gaming and betting … and to ensure that the rights of the provinces in that field are not reduced or restricted.” 

Bill S-211 would add a second referee who has not been part of the play, creating overlap where clarity is essential and inviting a level of confusion that helps no one.

The bill’s intentions are understandable. Protecting young people and promoting responsible gaming should always be part of the discussion. That work is already happening. While public perception suggests sports betting advertising is surging, it does not match the numbers. Advertising data shows gaming ads account for only 2 per cent of all television advertising in the first half of 2025, consistent with the same period in 2024. Total media spending in the sector also remains below earlier peaks, holding steady at roughly 2 per cent of total media spend.

Provinces have not stood still. Ontario has led the charge on advertising rules for sports betting and continues updating them as media habits and market conditions change. Alberta has taken a similar approach through their active work on regulating their online gambling market. Their regulators are close to their markets, monitor risk indicators in real time, and can act quickly when adjustments are needed. 

Many of the major advertisers in the space are provincial lottery corporations, which means the same authorities setting the rules are the ones enforcing them. This direct line of responsibility supports responsible play and consistent standards across their jurisdictions.

Ontario, along with Alberta, strongly oppose Bill S-211 and already have strong gaming regulations through bodies like the Alberta Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis (AGLC), and Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO). 

Industry oversight is also evolving. Working with broadcasters and other partners, the Canadian Gaming Association led in the development of a new Code for Responsible Gaming Advertising that is now in effect. It prohibits ads that target or appeal to minors and provides clear guidance for responsible practices across platforms. Advertising Standards Canada will enforce the code. It complements provincial regulation, rather than replacing it.

Indeed, a unilateral ban is unlikely to eliminate sports betting advertising. Instead, it could create confusion and uncertainty for customers about what is regulated, potentially driving both individuals and operators toward unregulated black markets with no provincial oversight or consumer protections. Italy’s attempt to implement a nationwide ban on sports betting advertising produced lackluster results, faced significant enforcement challenges, and made it difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal betting. As a result, Italy is now reconsidering whether that policy approach is truly workable.

In Canada, adding a national framework on top of existing provincial rules won’t strengthen protection. It would replace a single, accountable system with two competing authorities, leading to conflicting decisions, reduced oversight and split accountability.

In any game, mixed signals from two refs do not improve fairness. They undermine it. 

Canada already has a model built on experience and responsiveness. Provincial regulators know their markets, track real risks and update their rules in step with changing behaviour because they are the ones on the field. They provide consistent standards that consumers understand and rely on. 

A federal overlay would complicate a system that is effective, proven and grounded in the agreement that placed gaming oversight with the provinces. One game with two refs only works when their roles are clear, and in this case only one has ever played the game. Ottawa should respect that role and support provinces in strengthening the rules Canadians already depend on.

Paul Burns is the President and CEO of the Canadian Gaming Association, a national trade association that represents leading operators and suppliers in Canada’s gaming, sports betting, eSports, and lottery industries.

The views expressed are those of the author(s). National Newswatch Inc. publishes a range of perspectives and does not necessarily endorse the opinions presented.