Tomorrow is Election Day around the country. It’s a day when Americans can exercise their right to help shape how their states, communities and country are governed. It’s also the last day Americans will face an onslaught of political advertisements on television, digital platforms and radio. That’s something to celebrate.
But this year felt different, and it was. I can’t recall seeing so many political advertisements for candidates I can’t vote for during national sports broadcasts. Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, there’s been an oversupply of political ads for candidates in states where you don’t live, mixed in with local advertisements for candidates you can actually vote for.
Is it legal? Yes. Is it a loophole that allows campaigns to save money while expanding their reach? Absolutely. But this year made it clearer than ever that broadcasters need to establish some guardrails moving forward.
I live in Florida, a highly political state. Like any other state, political advertisements become rampant as Election Day approaches. I have my personal favorites and tropes that I enjoy. For instance, marrying a police officer apparently qualifies someone for public office just as much as having the ability to shoot clay targets with a shotgun. Go figure!
But this year is different. There’s more fear and division than ever in the country, and candidates are spending accordingly. Unfortunately for sports fans, one of the biggest opportunities to reach a large audience is through the vehicle of live sports.
2026 Was Too Much
Seeing national political advertisements for candidates you can’t vote for isn’t new. Because of the money super PACs can raise and spend during an election cycle, national networks have never been shy about accepting those advertising dollars. However, when local advertising inventory sells out in markets where competitive races are taking place, campaigns and their supporting organizations have another option: national advertising buys.
Those buys can help political advertisers save money while reaching a much larger audience, particularly during live sports programming.
According to John Ourand, every network executive he spoke with said political advertising revenue in October alone doubled what it was four years ago. October is the sports equinox. When the MLB postseason meets college football and the NFL, along with the starts of the NBA and NHL seasons.
As of last Friday, a reported $11.3 billion had been spent on political advertising this year. That easily eclipses the $8.9 billion spent during the 2022 midterm elections and the total spent during the 2024 presidential election cycle, according to Cross Screen Media.
But should advertisements for Texas Senate candidate James Talarico run during a Chicago Bears game against the New York Jets? Why should fans watching the Miami Dolphins take on the New England Patriots be subjected to advertisements about Sherrod Brown and his voting record in Ohio? Add those national advertisements to the barrage of local political spots featuring candidates running for office in every commercial break.
You never thought you’d find yourself begging to see a normal commercial in your lifetime, did you?
Yes, this is bonus revenue for networks, both local and national. It’s money they have welcomed for years and, in some cases, counted on to help get through the fiscal year. However, if this election cycle proves anything, it’s that there needs to be a better approach to where these advertisements air.
Guardrails Must Happen
It’s entirely understandable for people in Texas to watch a sporting event and see political advertisements for candidates on their ballot. The same applies to every state in the union. But networks have become too focused on accepting every available advertising dollar and blanketing national audiences. Instead of adapting their approach and using or developing technology to maximize the value of those buys.
In other words, why not sell advertising game by game? Wouldn’t that make the most sense? If the Cowboys are playing the Browns, it would make sense for advertisements involving candidates from Texas or Ohio to be part of the national commercial inventory.
Alternatively, could networks develop technology that allows them to insert geographically targeted advertisements into a broadcast? Regardless of where the game is being broadcast? Is there dynamic ad insertion for OTA broadcasts? If so, why not use. If not, why not?
That way, viewers in each coverage area would see advertisements specific to the candidates and issues on their ballots.
By thinking differently about how political advertising is sold and distributed, networks could create additional revenue opportunities. Properly serving the viewers who can actually vote on the candidates and issues being marketed.
Maybe it’s me, but if I can’t vote for the candidate, why the hell am I seeing that candidate’s advertisement?
Political advertising isn’t going away, nor should it. Candidates deserve the opportunity to reach voters, and networks deserve to benefit from the enormous demand for advertising during live sports. However, there’s a difference between reaching an audience and wasting money on people who have absolutely no say in the outcome.
The financial incentive is there to make it happen. Networks just need to be willing to think beyond the traditional national ad buy. If they can find a way to make every commercial break more valuable to advertisers and less intrusive to viewers, everybody wins.
After all, the only thing worse than watching a political advertisement for a candidate you can’t vote for is watching another one immediately afterward. At some point, even the most loyal sports fan has to wonder if there’s a way to vote against the commercials.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
