By Dr Shaheda Omar

World Sports Betting visited a preschool classroom at Cornwall Hill College in Pretoria. The reported incident is deeply concerning and inappropriate. A preschool is a place of learning, development, nurturing and protection. It is not a commercial advertising space, particularly for an industry such as gambling, which carries well-documented risks of addiction and financial and social harm.

What makes this incident particularly troubling is the age of the children involved. Preschool children are at a developmental stage where they are impressionable, naturally curious and unable to fully understand the implications of gambling, betting or the commercial interests behind such activities.

A betting company entering a classroom, displaying its branding, spinning a prize wheel and rewarding a teacher for maintaining an active betting account raises serious questions about professional boundaries, ethical responsibility and the safeguarding obligations of everyone involved.

What message this sends to children

Schools and teachers occupy positions of trust and authority. When a betting company is welcomed into that environment and its activities are associated with excitement, prizes and rewards, children may begin to associate the brand and, by extension, gambling with something positive, ordinary and socially acceptable.

We need to ask a fundamental question: Would we consider it appropriate for a tobacco company or an alcohol brand to enter a preschool classroom to promote its products? If not, why should gambling be treated differently?

Is WSB is promoting gambling among young children?

Absolutely, it creates that risk, and this is precisely why such activities require careful scrutiny.

Even if World Sports Betting maintains that its intention was not to recruit young children as gamblers, we cannot ignore the indirect influence of brand exposure. Marketing does not always have to explicitly invite someone to purchase a product to shape attitudes and perceptions. Familiarity, positive associations, rewards and repeated exposure can all contribute to normalising a particular brand or activity.

Young children may not understand what a betting account is, but they understand rewards, prizes, games, excitement and the approval of adults they trust. They may see their teacher being rewarded by a betting company and interpret this as an endorsement of the brand.

There is a significant difference between an adult making an informed decision about whether to participate in gambling and a child being exposed to gambling-related branding and promotional activities in an educational environment.

We must also consider the broader public health implications. Gambling-related harm does not affect only the individual who gambles. It can affect families, household finances, relationships and, ultimately, children’s safety and wellbeing. Children growing up in households affected by gambling may experience neglect, financial instability, emotional distress and other forms of adversity.

South African legislation recognises the need to protect minors from gambling promotion. Section 15 of the National Gambling Act 7 of 2004 prohibits advertising or promoting gambling activities, other than amusement games, in a manner intended to target or attract minors. Regulation 3 of the National Gambling Regulations also restricts gambling advertising at venues where the majority of the audience may reasonably be expected to be under 18.

The Advertising Regulatory Board’s gambling appendix similarly addresses advertising at venues predominantly attended by minors.

While the precise legal implications of this particular visit would require an examination of the facts, the reported circumstances certainly warrant scrutiny by the relevant regulatory authorities.

Appeasing corporate interests not acceptable

I believe this incident raises a much bigger issue about the commercialisation of childhood and the increasing encroachment of corporate interests into spaces that should remain safe for children.

Schools are entrusted with the responsibility of protecting children, promoting their development and providing an environment in which they can learn without being subjected to inappropriate commercial influences. This responsibility extends beyond physical safety to include children’s psychological, emotional and developmental wellbeing.

Accountability and authorisation

Who authorised this visit? Was the school management aware of the nature of the promotional activity? Were parents informed and did they provide consent? What safeguarding considerations were undertaken before allowing a betting company into a preschool classroom?

Responsibility of the school

Educational institutions must exercise sound judgement when entering into relationships with corporate sponsors or commercial organisations. Not every company or promotional initiative is appropriate for a school environment. The best interests of children must take precedence over incentives, sponsorships or commercial relationships.

Responsibility of the gambling industry

Companies operating in this sector have a particular responsibility to ensure that their marketing practices do not expose children to gambling-related messages or normalise betting among vulnerable age groups. Responsible gambling cannot simply be a disclaimer attached to advertising; it must be reflected in the actual conduct and marketing practices of these companies.

Parental trust

Parents entrust schools with their children’s care during the school day. They should not have to question whether their children are being exposed to commercial activities that they would not ordinarily approve of. Transparency and accountability are essential to maintaining that trust.

There is also a broader societal concern. South Africa is already grappling with significant social and economic challenges associated with gambling-related harm. We should be strengthening prevention and protecting children from early exposure, rather than allowing gambling brands to become familiar features of their educational environments.

Corporate Social Responsibility?

Companies cannot claim to be socially responsible simply because they provide prizes, rewards or sponsorships to schools. We need to interrogate the nature of that engagement, who benefits from it, and whether it exposes children to products or industries that may place their wellbeing at risk.

The National Gambling Board itself issued a statement on 1 December 2025 reminding provincial licensing authorities of their obligations to address gambling advertising that may contravene legislation, particularly in relation to protecting minors.

The question is therefore not simply whether the company intended to market gambling to children. It is whether the activity, in its setting and execution, was appropriate and consistent with the duty to protect children.

We cannot afford to be complacent about the ways in which children are exposed to potentially harmful industries. Childhood must be protected from commercial exploitation, and schools must remain safe spaces where children’s best interests are paramount.

A betting company has no business creating positive brand associations in a preschool classroom. Children should be learning about healthy relationships, kindness, respect, safety and their rights – not becoming familiar with betting brands, gambling accounts and promotional incentives.

We must be very careful about what we normalise in the lives of children. What may appear to adults to be an innocent promotional exercise can contribute to shaping children’s attitudes and perceptions in ways they are not developmentally equipped to understand.

Ultimately, the question is not whether children were actually encouraged to place bets. The question is why a gambling brand was allowed into a preschool classroom in the first place.

Cornwall Hill College should explain who approved the visit, what parental consent was obtained, and what child-protection risk assessment was undertaken.

The National Gambling Board and relevant provincial gambling authority must investigate whether the activity complied with the applicable advertising restrictions.