Will only state-run gambling operators remain visible in the future?  

The Netherlands is working on stricter gambling advertising laws. But who will remain visible once commercial operators disappear?  

The Dutch government is taking the next step in its fight against gambling advertising.  

TV adverts have already disappeared from the screen. Radio adverts followed. Outdoor advertising was banned. Sports sponsorship by online gambling companies is set to disappear entirely. Now there is talk of even stricter restrictions for online gambling providers.  

The aim is clear: less exposure to gambling advertising and greater protection for vulnerable players.  

Yet one question continues to loom ever more prominently over the market.  

If licensed commercial operators are soon no longer allowed to be visible virtually anywhere, who will be left?  

Will the lotteries remain unscathed?  

For many Dutch people, the answer is simple.  

The Staatsloterij.  

The VriendenLoterij.  

The Postcode Lottery.  

These lotteries have traditionally been exempt from many of the strictest restrictions that apply to online casinos and bookmakers. The reason is well known. Policymakers regard lotteries as products with a lower risk of problem gambling.  

This creates a striking contrast.  

Whilst online casinos and sports betting are increasingly disappearing from the high street, lotteries remain visible through television, online campaigns, sponsorship and other marketing activities.  

This raises a fundamental question. 

If gambling advertising is undesirable, why does that not apply to all forms of gambling? 

A debate that is also taking place in Belgium  

The Netherlands is not alone.  

In Belgium, too, the rules on gambling advertising have been significantly tightened in recent years. Licensed online operators have been given fewer and fewer opportunities to promote their services.  

At the same time, the National Lottery has remained a prominent presence in the public sphere.  

This has led to a debate similar to that in the Netherlands.  

Critics question whether, by making such exceptions, the government is actually limiting the visibility of gambling, or whether attention is simply shifting from commercial providers to state-run games of chance.  

Supporters of the current policy point out that lotteries have a different risk profile to online casinos and sports betting. In their view, this justifies different treatment.  

Opponents, however, see this primarily as creating an uneven playing field.  

The risk of invisible licence holders  

The debate now extends beyond advertising alone.  

Regulators regularly emphasise the importance of channelling: players must find their way to licensed providers who are subject to supervision and are obliged to protect players.  

According to many market players, this is precisely where the problem lies. 

When legal providers become virtually invisible, it becomes more difficult for consumers to distinguish between regulated providers and illegal websites.  

These illegal providers pay little heed to national advertising bans, duties of care or player protection.  

It is precisely for this reason that various experts warn that a total ban on advertising could have unintended consequences.  

After all, less advertising does not automatically mean less demand.  

More than just a discussion about marketing  

The crux of the debate lies elsewhere.  

Should the government treat all forms of gambling equally?  

Or is it justified to grant lotteries an exceptional status because they are considered less risky?  

This is a question that is not unique to the Netherlands.  

Belgium, too, is grappling with the same balancing act between consumer protection, market forces and visibility.  

For when almost all licensed providers disappear from view, the discussion naturally shifts to those who are allowed to remain visible.