Croatia gambling law criticism raises youth protection concerns

Lawmakers in Croatia have raised fresh concerns about the effectiveness of the country’s 2025 gambling law, arguing that it falls short of its central objective to protect children and young people. Members of parliament Božo Petrov and Marin Miletić have publicly criticised what they describe as structural weaknesses in the legislation, including regulatory gaps that allow gambling promotion to persist in everyday environments.

Their remarks reflect a broader policy debate about how to balance a regulated gambling market with public health priorities, particularly the need to shield minors from exposure to betting and casino branding.

Lawmakers say sponsorships undermine protections

At a recent press conference, Petrov and Miletić argued that while the 2025 law introduced certain restrictions, it has not significantly reduced the visibility of gambling operators. Instead, they suggested that companies have adapted by shifting their marketing strategies away from traditional advertising channels toward sponsorship arrangements.

According to Petrov, these sponsorships have extended the presence of gambling brands into areas such as sport, culture and community events. He highlighted the appearance of betting and casino logos on the jerseys of youth and underage athletes as a particularly concerning development. In his view, this type of exposure risks normalising gambling behaviour in settings that are intended to be safe and development focused.

Miletić echoed these concerns, stating that the current legal framework leaves room for continued promotion through sports affiliations. He emphasised that children should not be placed in a position where they wear clothing displaying bookmaker logos, noting that sport should remain separate from commercial messaging linked to gambling activities.

Both lawmakers stressed that the issue is not limited to formal advertising but extends to the broader visibility of gambling brands in public life. They argued that even where direct advertising is restricted, indirect exposure through sponsorships continues to reach young audiences in meaningful ways.

Enforcement gaps and regulatory loopholes

Beyond sponsorship concerns, Petrov pointed to what he described as enforcement shortcomings within the current system. One issue raised relates to the register of excluded players, a mechanism designed to allow individuals to voluntarily restrict their access to gambling services.

Petrov stated that some operators have not consistently complied with their legal obligation to include players in this register when requested. He characterised this as a serious matter, particularly for individuals seeking to limit or stop their gambling activity. If accurate, such gaps in enforcement could weaken one of the key consumer protection tools embedded in the law.

Another area of concern involves the adaptation of gambling offerings within hospitality venues. According to the lawmakers, some businesses have removed betting terminals in response to regulatory requirements, only to replace them with alternative gambling machines. This, they argue, illustrates how quickly operators can adjust their business models when legislation lacks precision.

These examples were presented as evidence that the law, while well intentioned, may not fully anticipate the range of industry responses to new restrictions.

Calls grow for new amendments

In response to these concerns, the political party Most has called for targeted amendments to strengthen the legal framework. Petrov and Miletić have advocated for measures that would close perceived loopholes and reduce the scope for indirect advertising through sponsorships.

Their proposals form part of a broader initiative known as the “Freedom of Our Youth” campaign. This campaign promotes a comprehensive national strategy addressing various forms of addiction, including online gambling, alcohol misuse, drug use and excessive internet consumption.

Within this context, the lawmakers framed gambling regulation as a public health issue rather than solely a matter of market oversight. They suggested that future policy efforts should place greater emphasis on protecting vulnerable groups, particularly minors, from exposure to potentially harmful influences.

A wider debate on gambling regulation

The criticism of Croatia’s 2025 law reflects a wider international debate about the role of advertising and sponsorship in the gambling sector. Regulators in several jurisdictions have grappled with similar questions, including how to define the boundaries of acceptable promotion and how to enforce restrictions effectively.

One recurring challenge is the distinction between direct advertising and indirect brand exposure. While traditional advertising channels can be more easily regulated, sponsorships often occupy a grey area, especially when they are embedded in popular cultural or sporting institutions.

The Croatian case illustrates how these challenges can manifest in practice. Even where lawmakers intend to limit exposure, the evolving nature of marketing strategies can complicate enforcement and reduce the practical impact of regulatory measures.

The importance of effective enforcement

Another key theme emerging from the lawmakers’ comments is the importance of enforcement. Legal provisions, no matter how comprehensive, depend on consistent implementation to achieve their intended outcomes.

Issues such as compliance with exclusion registers highlight the need for robust oversight mechanisms and clear accountability standards. Without these, even well designed consumer protection tools may fail to deliver meaningful benefits.

At the same time, regulators must consider how to anticipate and respond to unintended consequences. The reported shift from betting terminals to other types of gambling machines in hospitality venues underscores the need for adaptable and forward looking policy design.

Looking ahead

As discussions continue, it remains to be seen whether Croatia’s lawmakers will pursue amendments to the 2025 gambling law. The concerns raised by Petrov and Miletić suggest that the current framework may undergo further review, particularly in areas related to sponsorship, enforcement and player protection.

Any future changes are likely to form part of a broader strategy addressing youth welfare and public health. By situating gambling regulation within this wider context, policymakers may seek to develop more integrated and effective responses to the challenges identified.

Conclusion

The debate surrounding Croatia’s 2025 gambling law highlights the complexity of regulating a dynamic and commercially significant industry. While the legislation represents a step toward greater oversight, the concerns raised by Božo Petrov and Marin Miletić indicate that important questions remain unresolved.

Sponsorship practices, enforcement gaps and adaptive industry behaviour all present challenges that require careful consideration. At the same time, the issue extends beyond legal technicalities to encompass broader societal goals, including the protection of young people and the promotion of responsible behaviour.

As Croatia evaluates its next steps, the focus is likely to shift toward refining existing measures and addressing unintended outcomes. A balanced approach that combines clear rules with effective enforcement may prove essential in achieving the law’s original objectives while maintaining a stable regulatory environment.

FAQs

What is the main criticism of Croatia’s 2025 gambling law?
Lawmakers argue that the law does not sufficiently protect children and young people from exposure to gambling promotion, particularly through sponsorships.

Why are sponsorships a concern in gambling regulation?
Sponsorships can place gambling brands in sports and cultural settings, increasing visibility among young audiences even when traditional advertising is restricted.

Who are the key figures raising concerns about the law?
Croatian lawmakers Božo Petrov and Marin Miletić have been leading voices in highlighting perceived weaknesses in the legislation.

What issue was raised about the excluded players register?
It was claimed that some operators are not consistently placing individuals into the register, which is intended to help people limit or stop gambling.

How have operators adapted to the law?
According to critics, some operators have shifted from direct advertising to sponsorships or replaced betting terminals with other gambling machines.

What changes are being proposed?
Calls have been made for amendments to close loopholes, strengthen enforcement and limit indirect advertising through sponsorships.

What is the “Freedom of Our Youth” campaign?
It is an initiative linked to broader efforts to address addiction issues including gambling, alcohol, drugs and internet use.

Why is enforcement important in gambling laws?
Without proper enforcement, legal protections such as advertising restrictions or player safeguards may not be effective in practice.

Is this issue unique to Croatia?
No, many countries face similar challenges in regulating gambling advertising and balancing commercial interests with public health concerns.

What could happen next in Croatia?
Lawmakers may review and amend the existing law to address identified gaps and improve protections for young people.