Opposition in Bulgaria wants ‘loopholes’ closed in gambling reform proposal

By jili tutorial · October 1, 2026

TITLE: Opposition in Bulgaria Seeks to Tighten ‘Loopholes’ in Proposed Gambling Reform

Overview: Bulgaria’s Proposed Gambling Advertising Ban

On 23 September, Prime Minister Rumen Radev and his cabinet unveiled a comprehensive draft proposal to reform Bulgaria’s Gambling Act, introducing a near-total ban on gambling marketing. The draft, which is open for public consultation until 23 October, aims to curb the visibility and influence of gambling operators through measures including:

A full ban on affiliate marketing.
Prohibition of gambling trademark promotion across all types of communication channels (digital, print, broadcast, outdoor, and event sponsorship).
Restrictions on any form of indirect or inferred gambling advertisement.

While the proposal is seen as a significant step toward reducing gambling harm, opposition lawmakers have identified potential gaps that could undermine its effectiveness.

Key Criticism: Vague Definition of ‘Gambling Trademarks’

The Core Concern

Assen Vassilev, Chairman of the opposition party We Continue the Change (PP), has publicly called for clarifying the term “gambling trademarks” in the draft legislation. He argues that the current wording is too narrow and could allow operators to circumvent the ban by using brand names that are not explicitly gambling-related but still strongly associated with gambling companies.

Why This Matters

Brand diversification: In other European countries with similar advertising bans, gambling operators have created separate brands or media properties that avoid the word “casino” or “bet.” These brands still function as marketing vehicles for the parent gambling company, reaching consumers under a different name.
Example from Vassilev: He cited a hypothetical scenario involving efbet, a major licensed gambling provider in Bulgaria. The company could, in theory, launch a news website called ‘efbetnews’ that does not directly promote betting, but still keeps the brand name in the public eye. This would effectively bypass the advertising ban.

International Precedents: How Operators Have Circumvented Similar Bans

Belgium: The ‘Foundation’ and ‘News App’ Workaround

Belgium introduced strict limits on gambling advertising in sports, making it illegal for operators to advertise directly at matches or on team jerseys. However, companies have adapted:

Entain (owner of brands like Ladbrokes and Coral) sponsors grassroots sports through its Entain Foundation banner, which is branded as a philanthropic initiative rather than a gambling promotion.
In 2025, Belgian football team Club Brugge FC entered a sponsorship with U-Experts, a sports news app owned by Unibet (a Kindred Group operator). Though “U-Experts” does not explicitly mention gambling, it directly links the operator to a sports audience.

Italy: The ‘Infotainment’ Websites

Italy’s 2018 Dignity Decree banned all gambling advertising, including sports sponsorships. Yet, several Serie A clubs circumvented the rule by partnering with websites that present themselves as “infotainment” (news and entertainment) portals:

Parma FC partnered with Admiralbet.news.
Inter Milan had a deal with LeoVegas.news.
More recently, Betsson.sport emerged as a sponsor.

These websites offer sports news, match previews, and results, all while subtly promoting the associated gambling brand. They do not directly encourage betting, but they keep the operator’s name visible to fans—a tactic Vassilev fears Bulgarian operators will adopt.

Vassilev’s Proposed Amendments

To close these loopholes, PP will likely push for several key changes when the draft bill reaches the National Assembly for a vote. These include:

1. Broadening the Definition of Gambling Trademarks

Current proposal: Prohibits promotions of “gambling trademarks” as traditionally defined (e.g., brand names containing “bet,” “casino,” “poker,” etc.).
PP’s demand: Expand the definition to include any brand name, logo, or identifier that is “associated with, or strongly resembles that of a gambling operator.” This would capture names like efbetnews, bet365.sport, or any derivative that echoes a parent gambling brand.

2. Tightening Restrictions on Outdoor Sports Facilities

Many stadiums, arenas, and training grounds in Bulgaria carry gambling operator logos on signage, seating, or naming rights.
Vassilev wants these sponsorships banned as well, since they provide constant brand exposure to spectators and television audiences, especially during sports broadcasts.

3. Implementing a US-Style Payment Blocking System

The idea: The Bulgarian government would require banks, credit card issuers, and payment processors to block transactions to unlicensed online gambling platforms.
Why this is relevant: In the United States, some states mandate that financial institutions refuse payments to offshore or unlicensed gambling sites. Vassilev argues that Bulgaria’s current legislation lacks this power, leaving a gap for illegal operators to accept deposits and withdrawals.
Vassilev’s statement: “Banks are very effective in doing so, if the relevant legislation exists. Currently, we don’t see anything in that direction.”

What’s Next for Bulgaria’s Gambling Reform?

Public consultation period: Ends 23 October. Individuals, businesses, and advocacy groups can submit feedback on the draft.
Legislative process: After consultation, the draft will enter the National Assembly for debate and voting. PP plans to introduce its amendments at this stage.
Potential outcome: If PP’s amendments pass, Bulgaria’s Gambling Act would become one of the strictest in the EU, with:
- A blanket ban on all gambling trademark advertising (including derivative brands).
- A prohibition on gambling sponsorship of sports facilities.
- Financial sector cooperation to block unlicensed gambling payments.

Context: Why This Reform Matters for Bulgaria

Problem gambling prevalence: Bulgaria has seen a rise in online and land-based gambling participation, with worrying trends in younger demographics. The government is under pressure to reduce exposure to gambling marketing.
Comparison to EU peers: Several EU countries (Italy, Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands) have already enacted strict advertising bans. Bulgaria’s move aligns with a broader European trend toward harm reduction.
Industry pushback: Licensed operators argue that a near-total ban will push players toward unlicensed foreign sites, reducing tax revenue and consumer protection. They may lobby for softer restrictions during the consultation period.

Summary Table: Key Features of the Proposed Reform

Area	Current Draft Proposal	PP’s Proposed Amendments
Gambling trademark definition	Narrow (exact brand names only)	Broad (any associated or resembling branding)
Affiliate marketing	Full ban	No change (support the ban)
Outdoor sports facility sponsorships	Not explicitly addressed	Full ban
Payment blocking for unlicensed sites	Not included	Require banks to block payments
Consultation period	Ends 23 October	Amendments expected in National Assembly vote

Conclusion: Closing the Gaps Before the Law Takes Effect

Bulgaria’s gambling reform is a well-intentioned effort to reduce harm, but as Vassilev and PP have pointed out, the devil is in the details. International examples from Belgium and Italy demonstrate that operators are adept at finding loopholes by rebranding or creating “soft” marketing channels. Without a broad, future-proof definition of what constitutes a gambling trademark, the ban could be hollowed out from the start. The coming weeks of consultation and parliamentary debate will determine whether Bulgaria’s law truly closes the door on gambling advertising—or leaves it slightly ajar.