for early access to the latest igaming videos!
and get the latest igaming news first!
At first glance, Dutch sport appears to have adjusted smoothly to the country’s tougher stance on gambling advertising. Stadiums are no longer plastered with betting logos, domestic clubs have adapted their kits, and licensed operators seem to be keeping their distance.
But behind the scenes, regulators are spending far more time dealing with what fans don’t immediately see.
Since the ban on most forms of gambling sponsorship in sport took effect, the Kansspelautoriteit (Ksa) has stepped up its involvement with sports federations and clubs. Not through high-profile penalties or public crackdowns, but through constant coordination, warnings, and quiet course corrections. The reason is simple: the biggest risks are no longer domestic—they’re international.
Where the Rules Start to Blur
Within the Netherlands, compliance has largely held. The regulator says it has not uncovered serious violations by licensed operators since the sponsorship ban came into force. That, however, only tells part of the story.
Problems tend to emerge when Dutch clubs face foreign opponents. In many countries, gambling sponsorship is still allowed, meaning visiting teams often arrive wearing shirts emblazoned with betting brands that are perfectly legal at home but forbidden under Dutch law. These situations sit in an uncomfortable legal grey area, especially when matches are broadcast across borders.
To prevent missteps, the regulator has begun working more closely with federations and clubs, explaining how the rules apply in practice rather than simply pointing to the legislation. International fixtures, with their larger audiences and complex media setups, have become a particular focus.
Clubs Finding Workarounds
Some teams have already shown that compliance is possible with a bit of preparation. During a European volleyball match in Apeldoorn, Olympiacos Piraeus took the unusual step of removing a foreign gambling sponsor from its shirts entirely.
In football, similar caution has been evident. Before AZ faced Jagiellonia Białystok in European competition, discussions took place with the KNVB to assess whether the planned shirt branding would cross any lines. The final design featured a logo linked to a score-tracking website rather than a betting platform. The name, visuals, and content were clearly separated from gambling services, allowing the match to go ahead without regulatory concerns.
Other clubs have opted for even safer solutions, including blank kits or branding tied to their own foundations. These may not be glamorous choices, but they reduce the risk of breaching advertising rules mid-broadcast.
When the Problem Isn’t in the Stadium
Perhaps the most revealing issues have had nothing to do with what fans saw inside the ground.
During several international matches—including fixtures involving Ajax and Go Ahead Eagles—branding from an unlicensed gambling operator appeared in certain international video feeds. Dutch viewers watching live television coverage were unaffected, as broadcasters had replaced the gambling ads with alternative content for the local market.
The problem surfaced later, when highlights packages circulated using footage that still contained the original sponsor imagery. The result was brief but real exposure to advertising that Dutch law explicitly seeks to keep out of sport.
These incidents triggered follow-up letters from the regulator, reminding clubs and associations that responsibility extends beyond matchday operations. In an era of shared feeds, virtual advertising boards, and global distribution, a single oversight in post-production can undo careful compliance elsewhere.
Regulation as a Moving Target
Rather than treating these cases as isolated failures, the gambling authority appears to view them as part of a broader learning process. Talks with federations and clubs are ongoing, and supervision of sports advertising—particularly around international competitions—remains active.
Enforcement action is still an option if rules are ignored, but the current strategy is clearly preventative. The aim is not just to punish violations, but to stop illegal or restricted gambling services from slipping into Dutch sport through technical errors, foreign partnerships, or misunderstood responsibilities.
As sport becomes increasingly global, the Dutch experience highlights a reality regulators across Europe are likely to face sooner rather than later: banning gambling sponsorship on paper is one thing. Keeping it out of international broadcasts, highlight reels, and virtual advertising is a far more complicated task—and one that requires constant vigilance rather than one-off enforcement.
Source: kansspelautoriteit.nl
