WHY BANNING SPORTS ADVERTISING IS NOT THE ANSWER
Luís Portela de Carvalho, partner at Lektou Law Firm and speaker at the IAGA Summit Berlin in June, argues that advertising bans push players towards unregulated markets and weaken player protection—calling instead for a balanced, harm-reduction approach.
In my view, banning sports advertising would be an ineffective way to address concerns about the normalisation of gambling and its potential harms to vulnerable individuals. Empirical evidence from multiple jurisdictions indicates that advertising prohibitions do not eliminate betting demand, but instead shift bettors to unregulated offshore operators, where protections are minimal and potential risks, such as fraud, lack of recourse, and privacy breaches, are significantly higher. Tese unregulated sites lack the oversight, responsible gaming tools, and support services that form part of a regulated market, creating a more perilous environment for players who might most need safeguards.
Eliminating sports advertising can also handicap legal operators in attracting and retaining customers. If consumers do not know which betting platforms are licensed and socially responsible, they are more likely to discover and use illegal alternatives. Regulated providers rely on marketing to encourage bettors to embrace compliant products, remind them about safer gaming practices, and alert them to resources for help should problem gambling issues arise. Without some level of promotion, the player base would be drawn to unscrupulous operators without transparency or legitimate accountability.
A ban on sports advertising also presumes that overexposure to promotional campaigns is the chief driver of problem gambling. Yet, regulated markets around the world show that problem gambling rates do not necessarily correlate neatly with ad presence. Far more significant is the availability of practical interventions: transparent monitoring of high-risk behaviour, well-publicised self-exclusion programmes, accessible helplines, and close collaboration between licensed operators and regulators. Rather than blanket prohibitions, these measures represent the most practical tools for minimising harm.
142
LUÍS PORTELA DE CARVALHO Partner,
Lektou Law Firm
Luís Portela de Carvalho is an experienced legal professional with expertise in gambling, advertising, commercial law, technology and IP. He is a partner at Lektou Law Firm, with a special focus in Gambling, Media and Entertainment. Prior to his role at Lektou, Luís worked as as the Head of Legal for Clever Advertising, overseeing all legal matters related to the company's operations. Luís graduated and earned a master's degree from the Catholic University of Portugal Faculty of Law. He is also a member of the Portuguese Bar Association, of the International Masters of Gaming Law and of the International Association of Gaming Advisors (IAGA).
Additional lessons can be drawn from countries already attempting to curtail gambling advertisements. In some European jurisdictions, restrictions have inadvertently steered consumers towards illicit channels without age checks or product controls. Similarly, in nations with stringent advertising and online gambling bans, unlicensed operators still thrive. Tis outcome illustrates that prohibitions, divorced from broader consumer engagement and education, entirely fail to eliminate demand, while undermining efforts to keep betting within a regulated environment that can be scrutinised and improved.
Ultimately, a healthy balance is needed—one that recognises the right of the majority to gamble safely and transparently, while providing enhanced protections for those who exhibit problematic behaviours. Well-crafted restrictions on advertising content and timing, and clear guidelines on responsible marketing and funded support programmes, uphold responsible gambling without silencing licensed operators or pushing bettors underground. By adopting a proportionate approach, regulators and the industry can reinforce a vibrant, sustainable, and safer betting market where consumer choice and public welfare are maintained equally.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180
