Why regulate if we can ban
By Dan Iliovici, Vicepresident ROMBET
The prohibition of advertising, as well as the imposition of a minimum distance of gambling locations from schools, kindergartens, cultural institutions, credit institutions, etc., are very tempting legislative initiatives for those who seek to quickly gain the attention and approval of the general public. This is how we shoot several birds with one stone:
■ we divert attention from economic problems facing society: galloping inflation, rising interest rates (also as an effect of inflation), an oversized and often ineffective administrative apparatus, not to mention education, health, the insurance system social (pensions) etc.
■ we attack an industry blamed by everyone, on all meridians, in whose defense no one dares to come, except those in the industry (some “bastards”, aren’t they?!), specialists whom they don’t listen to anyway no one;
■ we can make arguments and propose “solutions” (read “restrictions”) about which no one asks, in the words of Marin Preda, “What are you basing on, sir?” Why is an advertisement or a game hall located 50m from a school, or another cultural location, more dangerous than one located 100m, or 150m, or 200m away? Why is advertising on the street, even a kilometer away from any inhabited house, worse than the one you see on your phone or computer, etc.
I am in favor of a rational approach to the problem of advertising in gambling, as well as the establishment of a minimum distance from a school, but I am convinced that only through dialogue can we arrive at a fair and effective regulation of our industry.
Dialogue means listening to the arguments of each interested party in the field of gambling (legislator, operators, authorities, mass media, representatives of civil society, players) and proposing solutions that harmonize divergent points of view.
Each party can come with its experience, with substantiated arguments and proposals, which will certainly lead to a balanced regulation, which combines the protection measures of minors and other vulnerable categories, with those of education and prevention of problems of game and addiction. In this context, the debate on the legislative proposals to regulate advertising or the distance between gaming locations must also be included.
I emphasize the fact that the field of gambling is one of the most strictly regulated in our country. Regarding audiovisual advertising, we have restrictions on the hours at which advertisements can be broadcast, between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., with the sole exception of live sports competitions (matches).
Moreover, the legislation prohibits the display outside of gambling venues of values or goods awarded through bonuses, promotions or jackpots, an aspect specifically pursued by ONJN, the body with regulatory, licensing, authorisation, control and monitoring attributions the field of gambling.
But all this does not mean that there is no room for improving the legislation, for better protection of vulnerable population categories. It is also in the interest of the industry to have clear rules that allow an economic activity to be carried out in a fair legal framework.
Better regulation of how gambling is conducted is needed. I repeat, I am for dialogue. But to ban advertising, or to impose an arbitrary distance from a multitude of institutions and locations of all kinds (places of culture and worship, as well as financial institutions) is not to regulate.
Prohibition is not a solution; the ban is actually an abdication from any form of reregulation:
“We are not able to make a good, efficient, fair regulation, so we PROHIBIT!”
These kinds of measures only seem to solve the problems, but they only open the doors to operators operating in the dark. They do not pay taxes and duties and do not offer any protection to players or vulnerable categories, minors. And the licensed operators will have to find more and more “ingenious” methods to advertise, to make their offer known, and by possibly imposing an exaggerated minimum distance, we would practically remove the operators from the perimeter of any locality.
I don’t think that would be the intention of the legislator, of those who propose such “solutions”.
Prohibition of alcohol also seemed good, it seemed logical: If we ban alcohol, nobody will drink anymore, so we solve the problem of drunkards. Same with smoking – once smoking is banned in public places, once we ban cigarette advertising, that’s it, the number of smokers will drop significantly.
But is there any study to prove that these measures would have brought the expected effect? In the case of the prohibition of the 20s of the last century, I think it is no longer necessary to look at what beneficial “effects” we had, but the question regarding smoking remains valid.
But let’s get back to our field.
We asked ourselves what effect this kind of measures would have horizontally, in the advertising industry, real estate, in the field of sports, sponsorships?!
Has anyone done any impact studies?
Regarding the other initiative, the one regarding distancing, how many gaming halls should be moved, or even abolished, what happens to the investments in the development of these spaces, what happens to the rented spaces, to the employees, to all the related services. In short, does anyone know what the socio-economic impact of such a measure will be? But the effect on the state budget, what will it be?
The state can and must regulate the way in which an economic activity that can produce negative effects is carried out, but the restrictive measures must be appropriate to the intended purpose, in our case the protection of minors and other vulnerable categories, and be proportional to the extent of these effects. Moreover, all regulations, regardless of the field they legislate, must be based on a study that justifies the restrictive measures and the establishment of special conditions for carrying out the activity.
Plus we should be able to assess the effect of these restrictive measures. Otherwise everything becomes arbitrary, subjective, without any rational basis.
In conclusion, I invite dialogue, debate, so that, even with good intentions, we do not do more harm than good.
Gambling has been a part of society since ancient times, whether it is legalized or not. But it is thousands of times preferable to an applicable and fair regulation, to a panacea like “ban”.
