Licensed Betting Operators’ Ads to Be Banned in Turkey

Turkey is preparing new legislation that would ban advertising for legal, licensed betting. The work is being carried out by the ministries of Justice, Interior, and Family and Social Services, and is described as aiming to reduce children’s and teenagers’ exposure to betting-related content.

Turkey appears to be entering a new phase on betting advertising. According to information circulating around the ongoing technical work, the government is preparing a comprehensive legal framework that could directly restrict marketing by licensed betting operators. The draft direction being discussed would treat betting ads in a similar way to alcohol and tobacco—moving toward a complete advertising ban.

Officials are focusing on the growing visibility of betting promotions across television broadcasts, digital platforms, and sports-related content, and the potential impact this level of exposure may have on minors. While no bill has yet been formally submitted to parliament, the fact that inter-ministerial work is underway suggests the issue could reach the legislative agenda in the near term.

If enacted, the shift would place Turkey alongside a number of countries that have already tightened or banned betting advertising through different models.

Why Is Turkey Moving Toward a Betting Advertising Ban?

One of the main drivers behind the proposed ban is the concern that children and teenagers are increasingly exposed to betting advertising. In recent years, betting promotions have become more visible through sports broadcasts, social media, and other digital channels—raising questions about oversight and the messages such advertising sends to younger audiences.

Authorities argue that frequent exposure can normalize betting for younger age groups and, in some cases, encourage risky behavior. They also point to the way betting advertising is often woven into sports coverage, which can blur the line between sport and gambling and create broader public health concerns.

Another focus is the difficulty of controlling betting promotions in digital spaces. Advertising distributed through social media, video platforms, and mobile ecosystems is often harder to monitor consistently, and age-gating measures may not always be effective. In this context, a ban is being framed as a preventive measure rather than a purely punitive one.

Policy discussions also reference how advertising is handled for alcohol and tobacco, with the suggestion that betting promotions could be brought under a similarly restrictive approach.

Betting Advertising Bans and Tight Restrictions Around the World

Turkey’s debate is taking place against a backdrop of international examples. Many jurisdictions have introduced bans or strict limits on legal, regulated betting advertising, though the scope and enforcement models vary widely. Below are some of the most notable approaches.

• Belgium
  Belgium moved toward a model where gambling and betting advertising is treated as broadly prohibited, with only narrowly defined exceptions. The stated intent is to curb normalization and reduce exposure—particularly among younger audiences.
  In the sports context, visibility has also been tightened. Betting branding in stadium environments and across sports-related settings has been significantly restricted, and sponsorship frameworks have been progressively narrowed.

• Netherlands
  The Netherlands adopted a model built around the idea of “mass-market” exposure. Advertising that reaches broad, untargeted audiences—such as through mainstream broadcast and outdoor channels—was restricted to limit the likelihood of minors encountering betting promotions.
  The same direction continued into sports partnerships. Sponsorship arrangements were phased down over time, with the end goal of removing regulated online operators from sports sponsorship placements entirely.

• Spain
  Spain’s approach did not rely on a single blanket ban, but rather a layered restrictions system. Advertising windows were narrowed, and promotions—especially sign-up offers and bonus-style incentives—were heavily limited.
  Sports-related partnerships and visibility were also constrained. Over time, parts of the framework became subject to legal debate, yet the overall policy direction remained focused on reducing public exposure to betting advertising.

• Italy
  Italy is often cited among the toughest models in Europe. Under its framework, betting and gambling advertising was pushed out of most major channels, including areas connected to sport and sponsorship.
  The policy has remained in place despite continued debate about economic side effects—especially around how restrictions influence revenues in sports ecosystems.

• United Kingdom
  The UK has not implemented a full ban, but has relied on targeted restrictions. One example is the limitation of betting ads around live sports broadcasts, intended to reduce saturation at key viewing moments.
  Football has also moved toward tighter standards. Under a planned change, Premier League clubs are set to remove betting sponsorship from the front of matchday shirts after a transition period, while other forms of branding may continue under separate rules.

• Australia
  In Australia, betting advertising remains a major public debate. While there is no universal nationwide ban in place, policy proposals and formal reviews have repeatedly pushed for far stronger restrictions, including models that would phase out online betting advertising over time.
  These proposals are often framed through a public health lens, focusing on the long-term effects of constant exposure rather than only short-term consumption patterns.

Did These Bans Work? How Did Betting Companies Adapt?

As countries introduced advertising bans and stricter rules, the core question became whether these measures achieved what they promised. Results vary by jurisdiction, but several patterns appear repeatedly.

In many cases, restrictions did lead to a clear drop in visible advertising, especially on mainstream television, outdoor placements, and high-profile sports environments. From a child-protection perspective, reducing the number of direct touchpoints is widely seen as the most immediate benefit.

At the same time, bans rarely eliminated betting activity itself. Advertising limits can reduce brand visibility, but they do not automatically prevent people from betting. In some markets, overall participation and spending were only modestly affected, while in others the impact appeared temporary as marketing shifted into different channels.

That shift is a key part of the story. As direct advertising opportunities narrowed, companies increasingly leaned on strategies that provide indirect visibility. Where shirt-front placements were removed, branding sometimes appeared in alternative locations—such as sleeves, training kits, or in-stadium digital inventory. In parallel, some operators emphasized media-style channels and sub-brands to maintain recognition without relying on traditional advertising formats.

Another common adaptation has been a heavier reliance on affiliate marketing and social-media-driven promotion. When mainstream advertising becomes harder, traffic acquisition can move toward third-party networks, content creators, and referral ecosystems—changing the surface form of advertising rather than eliminating it.

Regulators in several jurisdictions have also raised a related concern: if licensed operators face tighter marketing limits, space can open up for unregulated or offshore offerings to increase their digital reach. This risk is one reason many authorities stress that enforcement capacity and monitoring are as important as the legal text itself.

Overall, the global picture suggests that advertising bans can reduce exposure, but outcomes depend heavily on the scope of the ban, the clarity of definitions, and how consistently rules are enforced.

What Could Happen in Turkey After a Betting Ad Ban?

If Turkey proceeds with a comprehensive ban, the most immediate change would likely be a reduction in the visibility of betting promotions. Removing betting branding from television, digital platforms, and sports environments could lower the frequency with which minors encounter these messages and create a short-term protective effect.

However, international experience suggests that even strong advertising bans do not fully stop betting behavior. They limit promotion, not access. As a result, betting activity may continue, and concerns such as underage participation may not disappear entirely. In many countries, younger users continued to emerge in the system despite tighter rules—because risk factors extend beyond advertising and include social influence, digital access, and mobile-first consumption habits.

A ban would also likely reshape how operators communicate. As direct advertising closes, regulated companies typically explore alternative routes—indirect branding, content partnerships, digital referrals, and other methods that sit closer to the edge of what regulations define as “advertising.” In that environment, enforcement becomes a central issue: the practical impact of a ban often depends as much on monitoring and penalties as on the written rule.

In short, betting advertising bans tend to reduce exposure and change market behavior, but they have not been a permanent, standalone solution in most countries. The effectiveness of Turkey’s planned approach would likely be determined not only by its scope, but by how it is implemented, enforced, and supported with broader child-protection and digital oversight measures.