ACMA Warns Former AFL Players Mitch Robinson and Rhys Mathieson Over Vegastars Promotions

Australia's media regulator has formally warned two former Brisbane Lions players for promoting Vegastars, an offshore casino it had already ordered blocked. It is the second time this year ACMA has chosen a warning over a civil penalty for an athlete-influencer, and the promotions ran after the block was in place.

• The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has issued formal warnings to former AFL players Mitch Robinson and Rhys Mathieson over promotions of Vegastars, an illegal offshore online casino, according to an ACMA media release dated 22 October
• ACMA says the promotions ran between March and April 2026, Robinson's on Instagram and through the Rip Through It podcast on YouTube, and Mathieson's on Instagram
• By then ACMA had already formally warned Vegastars' operator, Neptune Projects S.R.L, on 20 January, and asked internet providers to block the site in January, which it announced on 13 February; nine Vegastars domains are now on its blocked list
• The maximum civil penalty for an individual who promotes an illegal gambling service is A$65,520 per contravention, and A$2.73 million for facilitating access, but neither man was fined
• It is ACMA's second enforcement action against an influencer, after a formal warning to the MMA fighter Jamie Mullarkey in July on the same terms, and it comes 10 weeks before the ban on notable people in licensed betting ads starts

ACMA Warns Two Former Brisbane Lions Players Six Months After a TV Exposé

ACMA has formally warned Mitch Robinson and Rhys Mathieson, both former Brisbane Lions players, for promoting Vegastars, a prohibited interactive gambling service, according to a media release dated 22 October. The regulator says the promotions ran between March and April and featured the service's name, logo and website address, gameplay and promotional commentary: Robinson's on Instagram and through the Rip Through It podcast on YouTube, and Mathieson's on Instagram. The pair co-host Rip Through It, an AFL podcast, according to Focus Gaming News.

The case first surfaced in April, when Nine's A Current Affair reported that the two were promoting Vegastars to their social media audiences, including through an A$5,000 giveaway, approximately $3,500, tied to fuel price pressures, according to Asia Gaming Brief. Neither responded to the programme's requests for comment at the time. ACMA said then that it was engaging with influencers about the legal risks and examining a number of potential breaches, a year after it had warned influencers of multi-million-dollar penalties for promoting illegal gambling.

ACMA member Carolyn Lidgerwood said both men accepted responsibility after ACMA contacted them, promptly ended their involvement with Vegastars and removed all the promotional material. "All influencers are now firmly on notice," she said. "Anyone who uses their online profile to promote illegal gambling services will face regulatory action which can include significant financial penalties." Formal warnings carry no financial penalty. ACMA says it has increased its monitoring of illegal gambling promotion online, and describes the warnings as a continuation of recent enforcement action against individual influencers.

Vegastars Was Already Warned and Blocked Before the Posts Went Up

In a formal warning dated 20 January 2026, ACMA found that Neptune Projects S.R.L, as the provider of Vegastars, had contravened subsection 15(2A) of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 by providing a prohibited interactive gambling service to customers in Australia. ACMA says it asked Australian internet service providers to block the site in January 2026, and on 13 February it named Vegastars among the latest sites it had asked them to block, because it continued to contravene the Act, according to its enforcement register. Its published blocklist now carries nine Vegastars domains, from vegastars.com to vegastars11.com; in April ACMA said it monitors for mirror sites and re-blocks them.

Since its first request in November 2019, ACMA had blocked 1,822 illegal gambling and affiliate websites by 24 September, and more than 230 illegal services have withdrawn from the Australian market since 2017, according to its latest blocking update. That is up from 1,751 when it ordered 12 more sites blocked in June.

The Penalties on Paper

ACMA's first influencer case, against Mullarkey in July, found he had contravened subsection 61EA(1A) of the Act by publishing advertisements for designated interactive gambling services, and had been knowingly concerned in the operator's breaches of subsections 15(2A) and 15AA(3). ACMA then put the maximum penalties at A$59,400 for promoting an illegal service and A$2,475,000 for facilitating access, including by hyperlinks: 180 and 7,500 penalty units at the old A$330 rate. At A$364, the Commonwealth value since 1 July, they become A$65,520, approximately $45,500, and A$2.73 million, approximately $1.9 million, the figures ACMA cites now. Mullarkey also received a warning, for ending his sponsorship promptly, cooperating and showing remorse, and ACMA said his case "should serve as a warning to others".

A Second Warning Makes Leniency Look Like the Policy

In July a warning for a first offender could be read as a one-off, with ACMA saying it would use its "full suite" of tools, including civil penalties. Three months later, the same outcome for the same mitigating factors looks like the rule: stop the deal, remove the posts, accept responsibility, and receive a warning. That is defensible, since penalty proceedings are slow and costly and a warning gets content down quickly. The cost is deterrence. An athlete weighing a sponsorship fee against a warning, rather than a five-figure penalty per contravention, faces an easy calculation. Public naming may do more work than the legal risk, but the A$2.73 million facilitation penalty stays theoretical until someone is taken to court.

The Promotions Ran After the Block, Which Shows Where the Gap Is

The more important date is January. By the time the promotions began in March, ACMA had warned the operator and asked internet providers to block the site. That two former players could still promote it in March shows the limit of blocking: a block stops a browser loading a domain, while an Instagram post, a podcast segment or a giveaway reaches people directly and can point them to the next mirror. For a blocked offshore brand, a recognisable face is a route around the block. Blocking 1,822 sites is real work, but it does not reach a podcast feed.

January's Ban Pushes Faces Out of Licensed Ads, Not Offshore Ones

From 1 January 2027, licensed bookmakers may not feature current or former athletes, celebrities or influencers in wagering advertising, and the operator, not the person, carries a penalty of 1,000 penalty units, A$364,000, for each placement. Former players paid by licensed brands stand to lose that income. Promoting an illegal offshore service was already unlawful, with the liability on the individual, but so far it has produced only warnings. If the licensed channel closes to recognisable faces while the illegal one still pays, ACMA's influencer enforcement will matter more in 2027, not less.

ACMA has made its point twice, publicly and by name. Whether the third case ends in a penalty will show whether its warnings deter promotion or just tidy it up afterwards.