How Gambling Advertising Affects the Player’s Mind?

The Power of FOMO

Every advertising campaign seeks to shape perception. In gambling, repetition does more than sell a product. It changes the way people think about risk and reward. When betting brands appear during every match, across social media and live broadcasts, they become part of daily visual culture.

This constant exposure creates a sense of normality. Psychologists call it the mere exposure effect. The more often we see something, the more acceptable it feels. Over time, gambling stops being an optional form of entertainment and starts feeling like an ordinary habit. That familiarity lowers psychological resistance, particularly among younger audiences.

Advertising works best when it creates urgency. Gambling campaigns have refined this into a language of missed opportunities. Messages such as “bet now,” “limited time offer,” or “don’t miss the action” are not random slogans. They appeal to a basic emotional mechanism known as FOMO, the fear of missing out.

FOMO narrows decision-making. It replaces reflection with impulse. The player is not asked whether betting is a good idea but whether they can afford to be left out. The more social the environment, the stronger the pressure. In sports, this is amplified by the collective excitement of fandom. Betting becomes an extension of belonging rather than a private choice.

Normalisation Through Sport

Nowhere is the link between gambling and identity more visible than in sport. Team shirts, stadium banners, and broadcast sponsorships have turned betting brands into a familiar part of the game-day experience. The effect is subtle but powerful. The positive emotions attached to sport transfer to the advertised brand.

For many young fans, gambling has been normalised as part of following a team. In Europe, regulators are trying to reverse that trend.

In Italy, the 2018 Dignity Decree imposes a near-comprehensive ban on gambling advertising and sponsorship across all media, including indirect forms, though the law is under critique and may be reformed. Several Serie A clubs, including Inter, Parma, and Lecce, have found workarounds by promoting brands affiliated with gambling companies rather than the operators themselves.

Belgium has instituted a broad prohibition on gambling ads, with stricter rules coming into force in 2025 for stadiums and transitional limits on shirt sponsorships until 2028.

In the Netherlands, a phased regime culminating 1 July 2025 bans gambling ads in media, public space, and sports sponsorships (teams, athletes, shirts, promotions).

Germany’s 2021 Interstate Treaty restricts casino, poker, and slots advertising outside the 21:00–06:00 window, bans targeting minors or vulnerable groups, and prohibits use of active athletes in gambling promotions; advertising remains allowed in sports venues under “umbrella brand” forms.

France has been tightening gambling advertising controls, including proposals for a “whistle-to-whistle” ban around sports events and stricter oversight of sponsorship, especially to protect younger adults.

The United Kingdom has not yet legally banned betting sponsorships on shirts, but Premier League clubs have committed (voluntarily) to remove gambling logos from the front of matchday shirts starting in the 2026–27 season, while other forms of gambling advertising remain regulated under advertising codes.

The Watchdogs Are Watching

In the UK, gambling advertising is regulated by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) under the CAP and BCAP codes. The authority frequently reviews ads for their potential appeal to minors or for misleading messaging.

In December 2024, the ASA upheld complaints against LC International, operator of Ladbrokes, over ads promoting its “Ladbucks” reward scheme. The campaign used gold coin imagery and game references resembling in-game currencies such as V-Bucks or Robux, which regulators said carried strong appeal to under-18 audiences.

Another major controversy involved four leading operators – Ladbrokes, 888, SkyBet and Casumo – which faced ASA rulings over adverts disguised as news articles. The ads described a man who had allegedly paid off debts and financed his wife’s cancer treatment through online casino winnings. Each advert followed a near-identical narrative, suggesting that gambling could solve personal and financial difficulties.

The ASA found these adverts “socially irresponsible” and in breach of the UK’s non-broadcast advertising code. It ruled that the content targeted vulnerable people and misleadingly appeared to be genuine editorial material. All four operators distanced themselves from the campaigns, claiming they were produced by third-party affiliates without direct approval. The ASA nonetheless held the companies accountable, noting that they stood to benefit commercially.

That case dates back to 2017, but since then the UK’s approach to gambling advertising has tightened considerably. The ASA and CAP have introduced stricter guidance on affiliate oversight, social media marketing and influencer partnerships, as well as clearer restrictions on imagery likely to appeal to minors. Recent updates to the CAP Code have also extended its scope to include non-paid digital promotions by licensed operators. The regulators now take a far more proactive stance toward identifying and sanctioning irresponsible gambling marketing than they did eight years ago.

Too Much of a Spin

Another high-profile case came from 888.com, which in early 2024 launched a campaign across London’s public transport network with slogans such as “This carriage is now a casino” and “Fancy a spin?”. The campaign quickly drew criticism for trivialising gambling and exposing a broad, mixed-age audience to casino branding.

The backlash was strong enough for 888.com to withdraw the ads voluntarily after inquiries from journalists and politicians. Health experts, advocacy groups, and the House of Lords’ Peers for Gambling Reform argued that the campaign contradicted the capital’s stated efforts to reduce gambling harm. Transport for London confirmed that the adverts complied with its existing rules but said it would review its policy following the controversy.

Across the Atlantic

Concerns about gambling advertising are not limited to Europe. In the United States, where sports betting has expanded rapidly since 2018, public tolerance is also waning. Betting promotions dominate live broadcasts across major leagues. Lawmakers have begun proposing national restrictions, arguing that the intensity of gambling ads risks normalising betting behaviour, particularly among young viewers.

Data compiled by ESPN in 2024 showed that betting ads made up less than one percent of all television advertising in the US, far behind sectors such as alcohol or pharmaceuticals. Yet the perception of excess persists. What matters to the public is not the number of ads but their visibility and emotional tone.

The Psychological Cost

The psychological effects of gambling advertising extend beyond individual decisions. Studies suggest that exposure to gambling-related imagery can trigger craving and reward anticipation in the brain, similar to responses observed in other addictive behaviours. Players exposed to repeated gambling messages tend to underestimate risks and overestimate their control over outcomes.

Urgent or celebratory messaging also reinforces impulsivity. It reduces the perceived seriousness of losses and strengthens associations between gambling and excitement. When that association becomes automatic, gambling ceases to be a conscious act. It becomes habitual.

For problem gamblers in recovery, this environment can be particularly harmful. Even a passing glimpse of a familiar logo can reactivate compulsive thought patterns. The same applies to minors, who may internalise gambling as a normal feature of adult life long before they are legally allowed to participate.

Operators often argue that they comply with regulations and promote responsible gambling. Compliance, however, is not the same as responsibility. The real issue lies in perception. If the public believes there are too many ads, or that their tone trivialises risk, regulators will respond.

The challenge for the industry is to manage visibility without fuelling resentment. Reducing volume is one part of the solution, but the greater challenge lies in adjusting content. That means avoiding youth-oriented imagery, limiting time-sensitive messages, and integrating clear warnings about risk.