Restrictions on Advertising and Endorsement for Gambling Sector: Key Points from Getmancev Meeting Discourse

Restrictions on Advertising and Endorsement for Gambling Sector: Key Points from Getmancev Meeting Discourse

** Revamped Discourse on Ukraine's Potential Advertising Ban for Gambling **

Let's delve into the heated discussion around the proposed restrictions on advertising and sponsorship for gambling in Ukraine. Here's a rundown of the major points raised during the debate:

1. Industry and Media Losses: Nikita Poturaev, Committee on Humanitarian and Information Policy chairman, warns that a near-total ban would mean losses for both the gambling industry and media outlets. He estimated radio could lose up to 150 million UAH, while outdoor advertisements could lose 100 million UAH. These sectors are crucial, with the military (who have struggled with gambling addiction) being the least spenders on TV and radio advertising and relying more on the internet.
2. Poturaev's Proposal: The suggested solution is to ban direct advertising but permit sponsorship. Warnings, their size, and presentation on radio and TV would need clear specifications. This approach, Poturaev claims, would maintain higher industry standards.
3. Support for Sponsorship in Sports: Yuri Musyka, First Deputy Minister of Youth and Sports, pointed out the essential role of sponsorship in supporting Ukrainian sports. Venues for sporting events and international competitions cannot host such events without outdoor advertising as a key income source. A total ban could cause significant financial harm, Musyka noted.
4. Banning Sponsorship could Harm Sports: Musyka advocated for a less restrictive approach towards sponsorship, allowing it for sporting events and related activities.
5. Advertising under Sponsorship: Anna Zdobnova from KRAIL highlighted that advertising is often disguised as sponsorship. Financial penalties have been imposed in three cases, and 35 cases remain unresolved. Regarding a complete ban on the internet, this move could allow licensed operators' ads to be replaced by information from illegals.
6. ** emphasis on Blocking Illegals:** Daniel Getmanets points out that relaxations are not the concern; rather, the focus should be on blocking illegal sites.
7. Threat to Radio Industry: Ekaterina Miasnikova, Executive Director of the Independent Association of Broadcasters, stated that any changes in legislation could deprive the radio sector of around 20% of its income. Additionally, this reduction could potentially impact the warning system, affecting part of the radio industry's infrastructure.
8. Concerns over Loss of Competitions: if sponsorship information is banned or only allowed on jerseys, viewers might miss out on their favorite competitions, as advertising covers part of the broadcasting costs.
9. Success Stories and Challenges: according to Andrei Reun, a chairman of the Tax and Customs Law Committee of the Ukrainian Bar Association, no country has yet succeeded in banning online advertising. Despite this, advertising demonstrates the presence of necessary licenses. A ban could lead to an influx of unregulated casinos, a problem even powerful countries like the US and China have grappled with.

While this information provides an overview of the debate, the specific impact of any proposed ban in Ukraine would depend on its details, which are not specified in the available data.

Here are some anticipated implications across different sectors if the ban were to be implemented:

• The Media Industry: revenue loss, shift in advertising strategies, and increased regulatory compliance costs.
• Sports: sponsorship and revenue loss, struggling to find alternative sponsors, and potential regulatory exemptions.
• Online Market: digital advertising disruption, migration to unregulated spaces, and increased regulatory scrutiny.

1. The revamped discourse on Ukraine's potential advertising ban for gambling raises concerns about potential losses for the media industry, given the estimated loss of up to 150 million UAH for radio and 100 million UAH for outdoor advertisements.
2. This debate also underscores the essential role of gambling advertising in supporting the Ukrainian sports industry, with Yuri Musyka highlighting that venues for sporting events and international competitions heavily rely on outdoor advertising as a key income source.
3. Nikita Poturaev proposes a solution that involves banning direct advertising but permitting sponsorship, suggesting that such an approach would maintain higher industry standards while preventing potential losses in the industry and media.
4. However, Poturaev's proposal raises concerns about the potential disguise of advertising as sponsorship, with Anna Zdobnova from KRAIL highlighting that financial penalties have been imposed in three cases, and 35 cases remain unresolved.
5. The focus of Daniel Getmanets, on the other hand, is on blocking illegal sites rather than relaxing restrictions, emphasizing the need for stricter regulation to combat illegal activities in the gambling industry.
6. Ekaterina Miasnikova, Executive Director of the Independent Association of Broadcasters, expresses concern that changes in legislation could potentially deprive the radio sector of around 20% of its income, impacting the warning system and part of the radio industry's infrastructure.
7. Additionally, if sponsorship information is banned or only allowed on jerseys, viewers might miss out on their favorite competitions, as advertising covers part of the broadcasting costs – a potential concern in the casino-and-gambling, sports-betting, lotteries, and casino-games sectors.

This information points towards numerous anticipated implications for different sectors should the ban be implemented, including revenue loss, shifts in advertising strategies, increased regulatory compliance costs, struggling to find alternative sponsors, migration to unregulated spaces, and increased regulatory scrutiny – particularly in the media industry, sports, and online market.

Read also: