Last year a cross-party parliamentary committee recommended a total ban on gambling ads in Australia

But after months of strenuous lobbying by the media, gaming companies and the major football codes, the signs seem to be that the government will settle on something less decisive.

Changes could include limiting gambling advertising to two spots per hour, banning it during sports games, and limiting it during other programming specifically aimed at children.

As we wait for the government to settle its legislation, and as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese fends off attacks on the issue — including from within his party — should we be looking outside Australia for advice?

Last year Belgium implemented a ban on gambling ads across television, radio, cinemas and in public spaces.

What impact has the ban had — and what can Australia learn from it?

Loopholes will be found

The Belgian government's ban prohibited gambling ads through direct marketing, and on free-to-air television, radio and social media.

Professor of Sport Management at Ghent University, Bram Constandt, tells ABC RN's Saturday Extra it's important to understand that, while the ban is extensive, it's not all-inclusive.

"It's not a total ban," says Professor Constandt, who was involved in advising the Belgian government in the lead-up to the gambling ad restrictions being implemented.

Some forms of gambling advertising are still allowed in the country for now. These include sports sponsorship, gambling companies advertising on their own channel online, and business-to-business advertising.

Stronger legislation will come into force in September, and will be "a more holistic approach that encapsulates more measures", Professor Constandt says. That includes an increase to the minimum age for use of all gambling products from 18 years to 21 years.

And, as of next year, sports sponsorship will no longer be allowed in Belgium.

But there are "many loopholes" to the legislation, Professor Constandt says.

Those include an exception to the ban for sports sponsorship; currently, sponsoring gambling company logos are still allowed on jerseys, or in stadiums. 

This, too, is set to end with the introduction of tighter legislation next year.

Another loophole is gambling companies being able to make new deals with foundations or causes that sports clubs might be affiliated with, rather than with the actual sport organisations.

"The gambling companies are really targeting these loopholes very effectively," Professor Constandt says.

"They use whatever they can find in the law to still be strongly visible, both online and offline, despite the ban."

'Tough' regulator the solution to loopholes

It's the role of a gambling regulator to step in and firmly manage a situation where loopholes are being exploited by gambling companies, Professor Constandt says.

In his opinion, the Belgium regulator is falling short. He says it's understaffed and lacking in resources, and is operating "as a spokesperson rather than as an independent regulator".

Australia must "invest in a strong gambling regulator", he argues.

"Of course, as is the case in Australia, [Belgian] gambling companies, media organisations and sport organisations are using all their capacities to legally overturn them, but currently they haven't succeeded."

Too early to judge impact

Professor Constandt says it's too early to say if the bans in Belgium have reduced rates of gambling in the country.

Last year's figures show that 2023 saw a whopping 50 per cent increase from the previous two years in gross gambling revenues of the Belgian gambling industry.

But Professor Constandt notes the advertising prohibitions were only brought in in July last year, so he says it's too soon to judge their impact.

But he believes public sentiment favours the changes.

"I think in Belgium … people are increasingly convinced that a ban is admirable," he says.

"[Gambling] is to some extent the engine of an industry that builds on addiction as a profit model.

"Gambling ads are contributing to gambling harm; they impact attitudes, intentions and behaviour, and there's mounting scientific evidence in Belgium and beyond that a ban on gambling advertising will help," he says.

Does free-to-air TV need gambling ad dollars?

Earlier in August, federal minister Bill Shorten told the ABC's Q&A program that "some of the free-to-air media need gambling ad revenue … in order just to stay afloat".

According to Andrew Hughes, a lecturer in the research school of management at the Australian National University, "the argument that we need to protect sports gambling ads to protect the big media brands has little to no basis" and similar arguments were once made to protect tobacco companies' advertising rights.

Professor Constandt is also dismissive of the argument.

"We hear [it] also in Belgium," he says. "[But] in Belgium, there's no evidence that their revenue is declining."

Another argument against gambling ad restrictions is that a complete ban would see people moving to illegal offshore gambling platforms or gambling on the dark web.

But he says the argument has "no logic".

"There's no ban on gambling. Not at all. No one is arguing that we should ban gambling. There's a ban on gambling advertising … The legal part of the market is still there, so there's no flee or migration to the illegal market.

"We have some preliminary evidence from Spain, because the ban is not unique in Belgium; many European countries are having similar bans, and in Spain, they could argue that everything that [gambling companies warned about] was not happening, so the media companies did not fall apart or go broke. 

His final word of advice for Australia?

"Try to circumvent lobbying and to continue to put forward the scientific proof that's out there.

"In terms of gambling research, Australian scholars are among the best in the world, the most prominent scholars. There's mounting evidence, and it's out there, but people still have to listen to it.

"Policy should be built not on commercial interests, but on scientific evidence."