Sportsbet removes AI player videos after AFL demands consent

Sportsbet has removed AI-generated videos of Australian Football League players from Instagram after the league told its official gambling partner to stop depicting athletes without permission. The takedown follows a players’ union complaint that the videos breached contractual restrictions on image use, according to Guardian Australia. The dispute centers on player approval.

The league’s instruction covered both future content and existing videos. Sportsbet was told to delete clips showing AFL stars delivering lines from films, television shows or speeches as reactions to real sporting events. The company removed the videos on Tuesday afternoon, October 13, after Guardian Australia contacted it.

The AFL Players’ Association, which represents players as their union, had written to the league late the previous week. It sought the removal of the content and an end to AI-generated depictions made without players’ approval. Its objection concerned restrictions on how the AFL’s commercial partners may use players’ images.

Borrowed lines, synthetic performances

One video depicted Lachie Neale accepting an award at Collingwood. Sportsbet manipulated his image to make him appear to repeat part of Snoop Dogg’s 2018 Hollywood Walk of Fame speech. The generated performance included the line, “I want to thank me for believing in me.” It was a borrowed speech presented through a player’s likeness.

Another clip showed Brisbane Lions player Will Ashcroft shouting a threatening line from the television series Ozark. Sportsbet framed it as his response to Fremantle playing “Wharfie Time” in the final quarter of the 2026 AFL grand final. The clip attached a fictional performance to an actual match moment, rather than showing Ashcroft’s real response.

The videos were intended as humor, but also served a commercial purpose. They were age-restricted and designed to increase Sportsbet’s social media engagement and reach new audiences and customers. The company had also created AI content using the images of coaches Sam Mitchell and Alastair Clarkson.

AI generated player imagery is not permitted without the players’ approval.

Alex Taverner, AFL Players’ Association general manager of legal affairs

An image-use agreement that does not mention AI

The 2023–2027 collective bargaining agreement—the negotiated contract between players and the AFL—allows Sportsbet to use player images and footage without individual permission in certain circumstances. Those permissions carry restrictions. The agreement makes no mention of AI, a detail Guardian Australia reported alongside the union’s claim that these videos breached its terms.

Taverner said the association had advocated for both removal and a halt to unapproved AI imagery. The AFL said it would continue working closely with partners on AI content as the technology evolves. Sportsbet’s response likewise described continuing discussions with the league, rather than a decision to abandon AI content altogether.

Gambling promotion adds another constraint

Sportsbet said it develops content to entertain fans and support engagement with sport. A spokesperson said the company listens to partners’ feedback and responds accordingly. Its continuing work with the AFL on AI content would take both partner feedback and community expectations into account, the spokesperson said.

The dispute also arrives before a legislated federal ban on athletes appearing in gambling advertisements takes effect in 2027. Independent senator David Pocock, a former professional athlete, called for tougher regulation. He argued that using athletes’ images without consent to promote gambling exposed problems with gambling-company behavior and safeguards against AI impersonation.

Mark Johnson, a University of Sydney senior lecturer who researches gambling and social media influencers, offered a less deliberate explanation. He suggested someone at Sportsbet may have acted without considering that athletes’ images are themselves part of brands and ownership. That was his assessment of a possible cause, not a confirmed account of how the videos were approved.