Gambling Ads on College Campuses Under Fire in Connecticut’s Proposed Legislation

Connecticut lawmakers have submitted a bill seeking to restrict gambling-related advertisements across public higher education institutions.

Committee Bill 5271, introduced by the House General Law Committee, is titled “An Act Prohibiting Gaming-Related Advertising, Marketing and Promotional Activities at Public Institutions of Higher Education.”

Corporate Sponsorships vs. Student Protections: The Debate Over Gambling Ads

The bill adds an extra facet to existing legislation around marketing and advertising. Under the eighth section, it reads:

“Not to be published, aired, displayed or disseminated (A) on the campus of any constituent unit of the state system of public higher education, or (B) on any Internet website, online service, mobile application or social media platform established or maintained by or on behalf of any constituent unit of the state system of public higher education;”

The move drew criticism from Neil Eskin, Executive Associate Athletic Director at the University of Connecticut, one of the institutions that would be impacted by the proposed changes.

Eskin commented: “The safety and well-being of our student body is of the utmost importance to the university, and we are mindful of this responsibility when the Division of Athletics engages in partnerships with corporate sponsors. We are also mindful of our responsibility to achieve fiscal sustainability, progressing in that direction through record donor philanthropy and increased ticket sales revenue.”

In testimony, he affirmed that the bill would impact business, stating, “prohibit our Division of Athletics from continuing corporate partnerships with the Mohegan Sun and the Connecticut Lottery.”

He emphasized the need for them to identify additional revenue-generating opportunities and that the athletics club’s longstanding partnerships with Mohegan Sun and more recent deal with the Connecticut Lottery are vital.

“We are asking that you consider the difference between passive advertising and the direct solicitation of students by entities that operate in the gaming space. UConn is categorically against direct solicitation of students by or on behalf of these entities, but practices such as displaying the Mohegan Sun logo on the floor of Gampel Pavilion and displaying logos of Mohegan Sun and the Connecticut Lottery in the arena are standard practice in our industry and critical to financial viability,” he added.

Furthermore, Eskin said that the women’s basketball team competes multiple times each year at the Mohegan Sun Arena, and others compete at the XL Center, which includes an in-arena retail sports betting facility. His concern is that the proposed bill would limit institutions’ ability to accept sponsorship money for ‘passive advertising in the arena.’

He concluded: “We firmly believe that this legislation intends to prohibit gambling companies from soliciting students directly, especially those who are not of legal age, to engage in such activities. If so, we request that this be made clear in the final language so we don’t unintentionally limit an institution’s ability to generate much-needed revenue.”

From College Campuses to Crypto Sportsbooks: Unintended Consequences of a Ban?

Paul Tarbox, Director of Public Policy & Communications at the Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling, supported the bill. He stated: “Expanding the bill to include restrictions on certain displays on campus-wide internet or communication systems just makes sense from a safety standpoint.”

He did, however, warn against an outright ban on gambling apps, suggesting that such a move could backfire and see students move to crypto sportsbooks or other sites where there may be weaker safety features.

The General Law Committee introduced CB 5251 after Rep. Rutligliano filed a bill proposing a ban on gambling advertisements in any public institution in the state.