Brussels Casino: Philippe Close accused of a conflict of interest 

The future operation of the Brussels Casino has sparked a political and ethical controversy centring on Mayor Philippe Close. Ecolo believes he should have recused himself from the process leading to the selection of Napoleon Games, a major sponsor of Sporting Anderlecht, of which he is a director. 

A €750 million contract under scrutiny 

The process was intended to determine who would operate the Brussels Casino for the next fifteen years. It is now at the centre of several disputes that go far beyond mere competition between two gaming companies. 

The City of Brussels has chosen ECK, the company operating the Napoleon Games brand, over Viage, which has been running the casino since 2010. The concession is estimated to be worth around 750 million euros over fifteen years. It also represents an annual income of around 10 million euros for the City. 

Napoleon Games is due to take over the running of the establishment on 1 January 2027. However, even before this date, Viage has challenged the award before the Council of State. 

Why is Philippe Close’s role raising questions? 

Philippe Close has been a member of the board of directors of Sporting Anderlecht since 2020. According to Benoît Hellings, leader of the Green Party group on the Brussels City Council, the mayor’s membership of the club’s board of directors should have been sufficient to prompt him to withdraw from the proceedings concerning Napoleon Games. The operator is, in fact, one of Sporting Anderlecht’s major commercial partners. 

Benoît Hellings has since lodged a report with the municipal secretary regarding a possible breach of the City of Brussels’ new code of conduct and ethics. 

This code, adopted on 29 June 2026, stipulates that a local elected representative may not use their influence or vote to further the interests of an organisation in which they are directly or indirectly involved. 

“Philippe Close should very clearly have recused himself from the entire decision-making process regarding the appointment of the company Napoléon,” he asserts. 

“You can’t buy the City of Brussels” 

The tone adopted by the opposition is particularly harsh given the value of the concession and its economic significance for Brussels. 

“We’re not talking about a chip shop here, we’re talking about a casino. It’s disgraceful, given the links he has with this company, Napoléon, on another board of directors of which he is a member. This isn’t right. It’s very bad for the local finances; it’s very bad for the image of the City of Brussels. You can’t just buy the City of Brussels, especially when it comes to gambling,” he says. 

The link with Anderlecht is not limited to a simple logo 

Napoleon’s bid would have directly capitalised on its relationship with Anderlecht. Several club-related events were envisaged at the future casino, including meetings with partners, season launches and events for supporters. 

The bid is also said to have allocated 3.852 million euros to Sporting Anderlecht’s ‘Tous Mauves’ programme, which is dedicated in particular to supporting and integrating vulnerable young people. 

Close’s camp defends the independence of the selection process 

The mayor’s supporters put forward several arguments to play down the accusation. 

The first is that Philippe Close did not sit on the panel responsible for examining and ranking the bids. No political pressure was allegedly exerted to favour Napoleon Games. The operator’s bid simply received a better assessment. 

The mayor’s office also emphasises the separation between the technical analysis and the final political decision. 

“A committee of experts carried out an in-depth analysis of all the bids on the table, concluded that this bid was the best, and the board decided to follow the committee’s recommendation. No politician would take the risk of jeopardising a €750 million contract for a shirt sponsor,” he explains. 

Napoleon Games was a few points ahead of Viage 

The outcome of the process shows, however, just how much every detail counts. 

Napoleon Games is reported to have achieved a final score of 91.02 out of 100, compared with 87.74 for Viage. The margin was therefore 3.28 points. 

This ranking is now being challenged by Viage before the Council of State. The Council of State’s auditor has recommended that the decision awarding the concession to Napoleon Games be suspended. 

Criticism centres in particular on a lack of clarity regarding how certain marks were awarded. A factual error is also said to have been identified in the assessment of Viage’s bid. 

However, this is merely the auditor’s opinion. The decision rests with the Council of State itself.