No sooner had the Belgian football championship ended than a significant announcement was made: runners-up Club Brugge have signed a new sponsorship deal with Betsson AB, a Swedish gambling operator. The partnership, billed as a record deal for the club, continues a long tradition of links between professional clubs and betting companies.
On the players’ shirts, Betsson replaces another well-known bookmaker: Unibet, also a former holder of the title of the league’s most generous sponsor. However, since January 2025, a Belgian law has largely banned advertising for gambling in sport. Bram Constandt, professor of sports management at Ghent University, explained the situation in De Standaard.
A carefully exploited legal loophole
Bram Constandt explains that the case of Club Brugge illustrates a very Belgian paradox. Officially, the law now prohibits most forms of sponsorship by gambling companies. Traditional advertising, pitch-side or stadium displays and even explicit collaborations with influencers are now banned. But one exception remains: logos of gambling brands can still appear on shirts, provided they comply with very specific conditions, including a maximum size equivalent to that of a smartphone.
This detail has paved the way for unbridled creativity on the part of the sector’s marketing agencies. By multiplying permissive interpretations, clubs and their partners continue to circumvent the spirit of the law without violating its letter.
Subtle circumventions and new strategies
One of the most widespread tactics is to create sub-brands. These secondary entities, attached to a major gambling group, present themselves as simple sports news or expert advice sites, but remain associated with gambling through their names and graphics.
Bram Constandt explains that this technique, also observed in Italy, enables operators to remain visible in the sporting landscape without explicitly displaying their link with gambling. And as the Gaming Commission points out, there is currently no clear legal framework to prohibit these practices.
As a result, despite the political will to tighten the rules on gambling-related advertising, sponsors continue to flourish. And the clubs, for their part, seem reluctant to turn their backs on a source of revenue that is as stable as it is plentiful.
Lawsuits galore… with little tangible effect
When the federal government announced its intention to regulate gambling advertising more strictly, there was a veritable outcry. Numerous companies in the sector took legal action in different parts of the country.
A court in Doornik even ruled that the GC could not yet penalise offenders until the State Court had ruled. Other court rulings have rejected appeals, but the situation remains unclear. In the meantime, controversial practices continue without consequence.
An ignored risk: digital hatred of athletes
According to Bram Constandt, beyond the legal and financial considerations, a more insidious problem is beginning to emerge: the psychological impact of sports betting on the players themselves. Recent studies and testimonies from athletes show a worrying rise in hate messages and threats received on social networks after matches.
Frustrated fans who have lost money on a bet do not hesitate to lash out at players, sometimes in a coordinated fashion. No sport is immune, and no athlete either. This phenomenon, which still receives little media coverage, is nevertheless on the increase.
Should it be blamed solely on platforms such as X (formerly Twitter) or Instagram? Or is the sporting world itself also to blame?
A structural dependency that is difficult to break
For many clubs, especially in times of economic tension, it is difficult to refuse offers from the betting giants. These companies offer not only large sums of money, but also long-term, stable and secure partnerships.
Other economic sectors do not (or no longer) have the capacity to compete. As a result, clubs find themselves in a form of structural addiction. And as long as the laws remain vague, court rulings vary and sanctions are non-existent, Bram Constandt insists that there is no real incentive for clubs to change course.
Where do we go from here? Towards a genuine withdrawal or a smokescreen?
The law provides for a complete ban on all forms of gambling sponsorship by the end of 2027. But with three years to go, the signals sent out by clubs and operators are hardly encouraging. The race for interpretation is still on, one deal follows another and the authorities seem powerless.