Sports betting: offers that flout the law  

Ahead of the 2026 World Cup, sports betting operators are rolling out a growing number of promotions aimed at Belgian punters. Some comply with the legal framework, whilst others are coming dangerously close to the line set by the law – or even crossing it, according to the GC.  

A decisive tournament for betting operators  

The Red Devils’ World Cup campaign came to an end in the quarter-finals against Spain. For gambling operators, this sporting event was above all a particularly lucrative period. The national team’s matches attract more punters and intensify competition between licensed platforms. Each operator therefore seeks to stand out by offering more attractive odds, improved payouts, competitions or promotional schemes presented as exceptional. 

As the competition approached, the Gaming Commission reminded operators of the rules governing promotions. At the end of June, the bwin and Ladbrokes brands withdrew several offers designed to attract players. These promotions mainly concerned their casino operations. The changes were made to bring the campaigns into line with the law. The Entain Group, to which both brands belong, declined to comment on these withdrawals.  

This U-turn shows that the line between a permitted enhancement of winnings and a prohibited promotional advantage remains difficult to draw. Operators are developing complex mechanisms, whilst the regulator must determine whether each offer is genuinely part of the game or constitutes a disguised gift.  

However, not all companies agree with the Commission’s analysis. Some maintain that their campaigns fully comply with Belgian rules, even when they raise questions.  

Betano’s offer at the centre of the controversy  

Among the campaigns still visible was a Betano promotion linked to the match between Belgium and Spain. The platform offered a free bet of 30 euros to players who had staked at least 20 euros on the match and won their bet. 

The offer was linked to a stake and the success of the bet, but it also included a benefit that did not directly correspond to the initial winnings. It is therefore up to the regulator to determine whether this mechanism complies with the conditions imposed on all operators.  

Betano, for its part, defends the legality of its scheme.   

“All our campaigns and promotions comply with the legal and regulatory framework in force in Belgium.”  

The Gaming Commission had not yet indicated, in the information provided, whether this particular campaign would be deemed compliant. It does, however, acknowledge having observed several problematic practices on the market.  

Why are gifts prohibited?  

Belgian legislation prohibits gambling operators from offering gifts to players. This ban does not apply solely to items or sums of money paid directly. Article 60 of the Gambling Act also covers free entries, gaming credits and benefits likely to influence a player’s behaviour. An offer cannot therefore be used to encourage someone to sign up, prompt them to bet more or persuade them to remain on a platform.  

The text specifies that the ban covers ‘any form of benefit offered with a view to influencing players’ gambling behaviour or to attracting or retaining players.’ 

The Gaming Commission has published a guidance note to explain its interpretation. According to the regulator, a platform may enhance winnings provided that the mechanism is directly integrated into the game. The reward must also be available to all players under the same rules. This distinction helps to explain why some offers remain permitted whilst others do not.  

The difference between an enhanced payout and a gift  

Let’s take the example of a match between Belgium and Spain. A platform may announce that all players who have placed a bet on this match will receive an extra five euros if the Red Devils score a goal. In this situation, the benefit is linked to an event during the match. It is integrated into the bet and applies equally to all participants concerned. According to the Commission’s interpretation, this type of scheme may be permitted.  

Conversely, an operator cannot offer ten euros in free bets to people who open a new account to mark the match. In this case, the benefit depends neither on the sporting result nor on the normal course of the game. Its purpose is directly linked to the acquisition of new customers.  

Time-limited promotions may also pose a problem. The same applies to benefits granted outside the context of a game of chance or distributed differently depending on the player.  

The Commission confirms breaches 

Magali Clavie, chair of the Gaming Commission, confirms that certain activities observed do not comply with Article 60. However, she does not publicly name the campaigns in question.  

“We have observed activities which, in our view, do not comply with Article 60. I think this ban is a hindrance to operators because they feel they are being discriminated against compared to the illegal sector.”  

Unauthorised platforms can indeed promote their services using bonuses or incentives that companies licensed in Belgium are not permitted to offer. Legal operators therefore feel they are having to compete against rivals who are not subject to the same restrictions.  

Enforcement slowed by procedures  

When a campaign appears to be prohibited, the Commission may initially opt for dialogue and issue a reminder of the law. This approach aims to secure the swift withdrawal or amendment of the offer. Resorting to standard legal proceedings takes much longer. A report must be drawn up and forwarded to the public prosecutor’s office. The company concerned may then present its defence and request a hearing.  

“All this takes time, during which the prohibited promotion could remain accessible,” warns Magali Clavie. 

Proceedings can last several months, or even several years. The penalty may therefore be imposed a long time after the end of a campaign, particularly when a promotion has been designed for a short-term sporting event.  

The Commission’s difficulties are not merely legal; they are also staffing-related. Three people are responsible for monitoring compliance across the whole of Belgium. A single person handles sanctions. This staff must monitor operators’ practices, examine promotional campaigns and take action when regulations are not being followed.  

Faced with this workload, the Commission operates according to priority action plans. During the 2026 World Cup, its inspections will focus on four areas: illegal offers, the use of the system identifying individuals banned from gambling in press shops, compliance with the advertising ban, and bonuses offered to players.  

“Our aim is to ensure swift action and rectification,” explains Magali Clavie.  

Towards greater powers for the regulator?  

The Commission’s chair would like the institution to have more direct means of intervention. In particular, she mentions the possibility of reviewing promotional campaigns before they are launched. 

Magali Clavie also hopes that the Commission will be able to temporarily suspend any action that is clearly prohibited. This power would enable the regulator to intervene immediately, without having to wait for the outcome of proceedings that could drag on for several years.  

For the time being, the Commission has to cope with limited resources, a cumbersome procedure and campaigns designed to disappear quickly.   

A legal boundary that has become a commercial issue  

Licensed operators seek to attract punters in a highly competitive market, whilst complying with legislation that prohibits gifts and benefits intended to influence gambling behaviour. The most sophisticated campaigns sometimes rely on distinctions that are difficult for the public to perceive.   

The withdrawals by bwin and Ladbrokes demonstrate that reminders from the regulator can yield rapid results. However, the questions surrounding other campaigns show that the interpretation of the legal framework will continue to fuel debate.