Key Points
- ACMA found that top ex-AFL player Mitch Robinson had two breaches and his old teammate Rhys Mathieson had three, and yet they didn’t even get a fine, just a warning.
- The money they got from promoting Vegastars, a cool AU120,000 for Robinson and AU19,200 for Mathieson, completely dwarfs what they got in the way of penalties from ACMA.
- From now on, it’s all going to be the bookies’ fault, well, some of it is, anyway. From 1 January 2027, the risk of fines will shift to the bookmakers who use famous faces in their advertising campaigns.
Paid a Small Fortune, Got Off Scot Free
How much does it take to get outed for promoting an illegal casino in Australia? If you’re a high-profile ex-AFL player like Mitch Robinson or Rhys Mathieson, the answer is pretty clearly nothing. On 22 October, the ACMA laid down the law and issued formal warnings to both of them. The reason? They had been promoting Vegastars, an offshore online casino which isn’t even allowed in this country. This all happened back in March and April 2026 when they were online influencers in full swing.
Robinson had been promoting the site on Instagram and on the YouTube channel for his podcast, Rip Through It. Mathieson, his old Lions mate, was running the promotion on Instagram only. ACMA member Carolyn Lidgerwood said that both of them had come clean and stopped working with Vegastars, which is good. She also let everyone else know “All influencers are now firmly on notice”
What The Final Reports Actually Say?
The press release only tells half the story, the ACMA’s final reports will give you the full picture. According to iGaming Business, ACMA was wise to its players sooner than it admitted. Robinson had signed a pair of deals with Vegastars back in March. This turned out to mean he got a massive AU$120,000 in total.
Two separate pieces of content got ACMA onto Robinson’s case. A YouTube podcast on the 10th and an Instagram video posted on the 6th of April. His content came down the moment ACMA told him to in May.
Mathieson got in a bit of trouble too, with three breaches on the 20th and 6th of April. The documents showed that he’s taken a whack of AU$19,200 for his trouble. He said sorry and said he didn’t even know the site was against the law, not something that ACMA was aware of.
Why The Fines Don’t Add Up?
ACMA says that if you get caught promoting an illegal online casino you’ll be on the hook for a fine. Up to a maximum of AU 65,520 for each and every breach. But if you’re helping people get to these types of sites, by way of a link or something, the stakes are even higher, up to AU$2.73 million. Robinson’s payment alone is almost double the maximum fine for one breach.
And it’s not like this was always the case. The maximum fine has been quietly creeping up over the last sixteen months. Back in June 2025 when The Guardian broke the story, the maximum stood at AU$59,400. And it’s not like it was never changed, it went up in a Penalty Unit Instrument, which took effect on the 1st of July 2026.
Vegastars Had Already Been a Target of the Regulator
The operator of Vegastars, Neptune Projects SRL, was already known to the regulator even prior to these posts. ACMA issued an official warning to the operator in January 2026. Subsequently, ACMA asked internet providers to block Vegastars sites. While the release refers to the January timeframe, other ACMA documents mention that ACMA asked for blocking in February.
However, blocking alone could not resolve the issue for the regulator. Despite blocking, Vegastars kept accessing Australian audiences using mirror sites, and ACMA tried to ask for blocking them. According to ACMA, by September 2026, it had blocked 1,822 illegal gambling and affiliate websites.
Television Story Increased Pressure on Players
In April, public interest increased when Nine reported on the pair in A Current Affair. Nine mentioned an AU$5,000 Vegastars giveaway and that videos were still available on the web at that moment. Tim Costello of the Alliance for Gambling Reform claimed to the show that “footy players have a duty to young people.”
Costello’s claims seem to be supported by the research at least among gambling viewers. In April 2025, a University of Sydney livestream study which involved surveying 350 viewers and observing 25 Twitch and Kick channels found out that most viewers were more willing to gamble after watching. The NSW Office of Responsible Gambling has fully funded that study.
H2 Gambling Capital, which estimated AU$3.9 billion per year in losses to illegal offshore betting sites, was commissioned by Responsible Wagering Australia, an organisation representing licensed bookmakers. The companies have commercial reasons to compete with illegal offshore competitors.
Letter Instead of Penalty Again
It is not the first case where an athlete has received only a warning letter. In July, ACMA issued a warning to MMA fighter Jamie Mullarkey about posts he made advertising an illegal offshore gambling website. Lidgerwood stated that “this was the first enforcement action we have taken against an influencer.” That case, like the current one, ended with a warning letter issued due to the athlete’s cooperation and removal of posts.
Now three sports personalities have received warnings in two different cases since July. No penalty has been imposed yet.
January 2027 A New Set of Rules Leaves Bookmakers on Thin Ice
New rules kick in on January 1st 2027 and the target is no longer social media influencers, but actually licensed bookmakers in Australia. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) dropped a bombshell guidance on Oct 19, just three days before they started handing out warnings to people who had already broken the rules. From now on, anyone putting up a wagering ad (either on TV or online) can’t have any of the big names, current or former sports stars, celebrities, social media influencers or anyone else who’s well known.
It’s now up to the bookmaker themselves to figure out whether they’re in breach of these new rules, not the person they’re paying to front their ads. Even if they use an agency to do the work, the bookmaker still needs to personally check the ads before they go out. ACMA will take a tough look at each case to decide whether the person being advertised is famous enough to count as an ‘influencer’.
The guidance says there’s no magical number of followers or subscribers that someone needs to have to be counted as influential. In fact, a person can become a notable figure halfway through an advertising campaign. This is a pretty good chance of having to yank the ads altogether, which could easily cause some frustration to the bookmaker.
A bit of an exception is made for racing ads but only if two pretty tough conditions are met. Existing sponsorship deals for sports uniforms and venues are pretty much being given a free pass until the end of 2031 as long as these deals aren’t out before that date.
Sportsbet was on the front lines during the passage of this bill, iGaming Business reported, and they outright warned in a Senate hearing on August 4 that “any old Joe with an Instagram account” could get caught up in this.
Expert Analysis: Are Warnings Enough of a Deterrent?
We reckon the ACMA have managed to make themselves look pretty soft at an awful time. Robinson reportedly earned himself AU$120,000 and yet he only got a slap on the wrist from the regulator. That is to say, two pretty clear breaches of the law and he gets away with a formal warning. A warning like that to every influencer out there reading the headlines sends the wrong message.
Of course, there is another point of view here and we accept it. Both the guys, Mullarkey and Robinson, were pretty cooperative, took down their ads and now they’re on the public record for breaching the law. I mean, from a regulator with limited resources, cooperation like that from the accused can count for a lot.
But the thing is, our major concern is with the overall picture rather than any single case. Mullarkey, Robinson and Mathieson all got off with a warning and Lidgerwood keeps talking up “significant financial penalties” for those who don’t get the message. At some point a warning that never gets backed up with a fine just ceases to be a believable threat.
New rules in January might also be chasing the wrong target. Bookmakers lose their celebrity ambassadors, but offshore sites like Vegastars just ignore Australian law altogether. Some of you may disagree, but we believe the ACMA’s next fine against an influencer will tell us more than any guidance document.
Share
8 views
