Young people and gambling: why Belgium also needs to look at parents and schools 

An age verification check only appears when someone wants to gamble. What happens before that often goes unnoticed: conversations with friends, a gambling video appearing among other clips, or a parent who considers betting perfectly normal. New research from the Trimbos Institute examines this environment. For Belgium, it raises a familiar question: how can young people be protected before they even try to open a gambling account? 

The Dutch study, commissioned by the Netherlands Gambling Authority (Kansspelautoriteit), examines how family, friends, school, leisure activities and the wider gambling environment are associated with gambling behaviour. The findings are also relevant to Belgian parents, schools and sports clubs. They show why prevention needs to look beyond the young person who ultimately clicks on a screen. 

Dutch figures, a relevant question for Belgium 

For its study on environmental factors and gambling behaviour among minors, Trimbos combined a literature review with analyses of the 2023 Youth Health Monitor. The regional data came from Rotterdam-Rijnmond and North and East Gelderland. This was therefore not a study of Belgian young people. 

In both Dutch regions, approximately one in ten young people reported online gambling activity. This figure combined online gambling games involving real money with those played without money. That distinction is essential: it does not mean that one in ten young people gambled with real money. Nor can the figure be used as a percentage for Belgium. 

Nevertheless, the underlying question is relevant here. Gambling Club previously reported on gambling behaviour among Belgian young people aged 18 to 20. That report concerned a different age group and used a different research methodology. The figures are therefore not directly comparable, but both studies highlight why the social environment deserves attention. 

What parents know is linked to gambling behaviour 

One of the most striking differences in the Dutch data concerns parental supervision. Among young people whose parents usually or always knew where they were, 8% reported online gambling activity. When parents rarely or never knew their whereabouts, the proportion rose to 18% in Rotterdam-Rijnmond and 20% in North and East Gelderland. 

This does not prove that greater parental supervision automatically leads to less gambling. Families differ in many ways. However, the association provides a reason to include parental involvement in prevention efforts, rather than focusing exclusively on warnings directed at young people themselves. 

For Belgian families, that conversation can start with very practical questions. What games does a child play? Do they include purchases with uncertain outcomes? What do their friends say about betting? Such questions can reveal activities that might otherwise remain hidden behind the general term “gaming”. 

The example set by adults also deserves attention. The literature review indicates that young people are more likely to gamble when their parents gamble themselves or have a positive attitude towards gambling. A warning about the risks may therefore conflict with what a young person sees at home. This makes parents important participants in prevention discussions, without placing all responsibility on them. 

The school environment is part of the picture 

The study also examines bullying. In North and East Gelderland, 18% of young people who experienced cyberbullying reported gambling activity, compared with 9% of those who had not been bullied online. In Rotterdam-Rijnmond, the corresponding figures were 23% and 8%. 

These differences deserve attention, but they do not provide a definitive explanation. The study does not establish that cyberbullying causes gambling behaviour. Different problems may also occur simultaneously. These figures should therefore not be used to label a bullied student as a potential gambler. 

In addition, young people who disliked school or felt bored there were more likely to report online gambling activity. Positive relationships between students and teachers, on the other hand, were associated with lower levels of gambling. This places the school environment firmly within the scope of prevention. 

For Belgian schools, these findings offer an opportunity to go beyond a single lesson about gambling. Attention to safety, bullying and relationships with students could be combined with discussions about online spending and financial behaviour. This is a possible application of the findings, not a prevention method whose effectiveness has been demonstrated by this study. 

Sport does not automatically protect against gambling influences 

Sport occupies a striking position in the research. Young people who participated in sport at least four days a week reported online gambling activity more frequently than those who exercised less often. At first glance, this may seem surprising, as sport is generally associated with healthy leisure activities. 

Researcher Anouk Tuijnman points to the close relationship between sport and gambling. People who follow sport may also encounter betting opportunities, gambling brands and conversations about predictions. The study therefore provides no reason to discourage young people from playing sport. Instead, it highlights the importance of paying attention to what happens around sporting activities. 

In Belgium, this connects with an ongoing debate. Gambling Club previously covered research into gambling advertising and gambling-related harm in Belgium and the Netherlands. That research also examines how exposure to advertising and sponsorship relates to people’s attitudes towards gambling. 

Belgium already imposes strict restrictions on gambling advertising and sports sponsorship. In its explanation of Belgian rules on gambling advertising and sports sponsorship, De Druglijn also describes the transitional arrangement allowing limited shirt sponsorship for professional clubs until the end of 2027. Strict regulations therefore do not mean that every reference to gambling has immediately disappeared from the sporting environment. 

Gambling takes many forms on social media 

Gambling-related content does not necessarily resemble a traditional advertisement. The Trimbos report also discusses influencers, livestreams and memes. As a result, young people may encounter gambling content among sports highlights, jokes and other everyday posts, without actively searching for a gambling website. 

A meta-analysis cited in the report found that regular social media use was associated with nearly three times the likelihood of gambling compared with infrequent use. This does not prove that social media itself causes the difference. The figure describes an association and should not be interpreted as an individual prediction for every teenager. 

For Belgian prevention efforts, the diversity of content is particularly relevant. Simply asking whether a child sees gambling advertisements may provide an incomplete picture. Discussing which streamers they follow and what those streamers present as normal may offer more useful insights. 

Gambling Club previously outlined Belgian restrictions on gambling advertising. The new research highlights why the broader digital environment also deserves attention alongside formal advertising. Legal restrictions and conversations about online influence address different aspects of the same prevention challenge. 

When gaming starts to resemble gambling 

The report also explores the blurred boundary between gaming and gambling. It discusses loot boxes, social casino games and skin betting. These activities differ from one another, but they expose young people to mechanisms that share characteristics with gambling. 

The contents of a loot box are unknown before it is opened. Social casino games imitate casino games, while skin betting allows virtual items to be used as stakes. However, not every digital reward is automatically equivalent to a real-money bet. These differences are precisely why clear explanations are important. 

This is a familiar issue in Belgium. Our article on the blurred boundary between gaming and gambling and Belgium’s approach explains why certain paid loot box systems fall under gambling legislation. Assessing these systems requires more precision than simply claiming that all surprise rewards in games are prohibited. 

For parents, the practical question is often simpler than the legal debate: what exactly is my child paying for? Purchasing an item with known contents is different from paying for a chance to obtain a desirable item. Discussing this distinction helps parents look beyond a game’s name or age rating. 

What Belgium can do with these findings 

The study forms part of an exploration of Opgroeien in een Kansrijke Omgeving (Growing Up in a Supportive Environment), a Dutch approach in which municipalities work with parents, schools, health organisations and other partners. Trimbos identifies parenting support, gambling-free sports environments and school programmes as potential areas for action. 

These are prevention proposals, not measures that this study has proven effective in reducing gambling behaviour. Any adaptation for Belgium would also need to take account of the country’s own legislation, education systems and existing prevention initiatives. Adopting a Dutch approach involves more than simply using the same name. 

Nevertheless, the findings offer specific questions for local cooperation. Do parents know what gambling-like content young people encounter? Do schools recognise the links between gambling and gaming? What role does betting play in conversations within sports clubs? Such questions can help bring young people’s everyday experiences closer to prevention policy. 

Ultimately, protecting young people begins long before an age verification check appears on a screen. It also starts with what is considered normal at home, what friends share and what young people see online every day. For Belgium, this is the most important lesson from the Dutch study: understanding gambling behaviour also means examining the environment in which it develops.