Problem gamblers in Germany are significantly more susceptible to the effects of gambling advertising than recreational players, according to a peer-reviewed study published this month in Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung. The research, covering nearly 4,800 active gamblers, found a consistent linear relationship between advertising exposure and gambling harm, with authors calling for restrictions comparable to those applied to tobacco and alcohol.
Study Design and Sample
Researchers Tobias Hayer, Jens Kalke, and Tim Brosowski from the University of Bremen and the Institute for Interdisciplinary Addiction and Drug Research in Hamburg surveyed 4,795 current gamblers aged 18 to 70 via an online access panel, with data collected between June and July 2021. Participants were classified using DSM-5 criteria: unproblematic gamblers (0 criteria met), at-risk gamblers (1-3 criteria), and disordered gamblers (4 or more criteria). The average age was 47; 57% were male.
The study measured self-perceived advertising effects across three dimensions: involvement (the degree to which advertising influences gambling-related attitudes, interests and behaviour), awareness (conscious recognition of gambling ads), and knowledge (understanding of gambling products and providers gained through advertising). The instrument was adapted from a validated Norwegian survey tool applied in earlier population-level research.
Problem Gamblers Report Stronger Ad Effects Across Every Measure
Descriptive results showed a clear gradient across all nine survey items: the greater the level of gambling-related problems, the more strongly participants reported being affected by advertising. The involvement dimension produced the sharpest differences. Among those meeting criteria for gambling disorder, 36.5% said they tend to gamble after seeing gambling advertisements. Among unproblematic gamblers, the figure was 8%.
The at-risk group consistently fell between the two, pointing to a dose-response pattern rather than a binary effect.
Multivariate logistic regressions confirmed these findings after controlling for age and gender. Each incremental increase in involvement scores raised the odds of meeting at least one DSM-5 symptom by a factor of 3.8. For the threshold of four or more criteria (disordered gambling), the odds multiplied by 4.8 per involvement category. Awareness and knowledge dimensions also showed significant associations, though smaller in magnitude.
Being male increased the probability of gambling problems by approximately 40-80% compared to female participants, depending on the model. Younger age was a consistent predictor of higher harm risk across all three advertising dimensions.
Germany’s Advertising Market
The study situates its findings within Germany’s expanding gambling advertising landscape. Legal gambling turnover in Germany reached €63.5bn in 2023, generating €6.6bn in tax revenue. Advertising expenditure in the sector totalled €477m in the July 2023 to June 2024 period, placing gambling in the upper third of all industries by gross advertising spend. Early analysis of UEFA Euro 2024 coverage identified high volumes of gambling advertising in live television broadcasts, with social media platforms also cited as significant channels reaching younger audiences.
The German gambling market was opened to licensed online operators under the Interstate Gambling Treaty of 2021, a reform that coincided with shifts in advertising practice. The study’s data predates that liberalisation but the authors note that the structural dynamics it identifies are relevant to the current regulatory environment.
Calls for Advertising Restrictions
The authors argue that the findings support a public health case for tighter advertising controls, regardless of questions about causality that a cross-sectional design cannot resolve. Whether advertising causes increased gambling harm or primarily functions as a trigger for already-vulnerable groups, both pathways carry material risk. The study draws comparisons with Belgium and Italy, where sports betting advertising bans in television, radio, and social media are already in force. Spain has also introduced measures restricting gambling advertising, bonuses, and sponsorship. A separate evaluation cited in the paper found that Spanish restrictions reduced new customer acquisition and total wagering volumes, though effects on existing regular gamblers were limited.
The paper recommends that harm prevention strategies focus on limiting advertising exposure, with the danger profile of each gambling product serving as the basis for determining permissible advertising intensity. Across the Netherlands, regulators have raised similar concerns about the normalisation of gambling through persistent marketing, while Spain has taken a step further with tobacco-style warning labels on gambling products. A 2025 national survey referenced in the paper found that 70% of German gamblers themselves support restrictions on gambling advertising.
The study acknowledges its limitations: the sample is non-representative, the cross-sectional design precludes causal conclusions, and two of the three sub-scales rely on only two items each. The authors call for longitudinal research and channel-specific analysis as priorities for future work.
Whether Germany’s Gemeinsame Glücksspielbehörde der Länder (GGL), the federal interstate gambling authority, moves to tighten advertising rules in response to this evidence base remains an open question. Industry groups in Germany have previously warned that overly restrictive conditions risk driving players toward unlicensed operators, a concern regulators across the region are weighing against mounting public health evidence.
Source: Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung / Springer Nature
