What Eden Hazard’s Stake deal reveals about regulatory limits in sports marketing

When news emerged that the Belgian Gaming Commission was examining the promotional activities of former Belgian football star Eden Hazard in connection with global crypto-based online casino Stake, it appeared at first glance to be another familiar story. A high-profile athlete, a controversial sponsor and a regulator stepping in. Yet the case has quickly evolved into something more revealing – a window into the structural tensions shaping the global gambling industry. 

Belgian authorities are investigating whether Eden Hazard’s endorsement activities complied with advertising and gambling regulations, particularly regarding transparency and the potential targeting of restricted audiences. But at the core of the case lies an important question for the gambling industry, what happens when national gambling laws collide with a borderless digital ecosystem? The Hazard case suggests that the answer is neither straightforward nor settled. 

Belgian Commission reveals the limits of legal clarity 

From the perspective of the Belgian regulator, there is little ambiguity. The Belgian Gaming Commission points to the clarity of its legal framework, citing provisions that prohibit individuals from advertising or facilitating gambling services they know to be unlicensed in Belgium. “Anyone who violates this article of the law may be held personally liable,” the Commission noted in a written response to iGB. 

This extends the scope of accountability beyond operators to include promoters – athletes among them. In that sense, the Hazard case is not merely about corporate conduct, but about individual responsibility within a regulated market. 

Yet the Commission’s own comments also reveal the limits of that clarity. Enforcement, it concedes, is fraught with challenges. Blacklisted websites can reappear under new domains; offshore operators often obscure their identities; and alternative channels – apps, mirror sites, cryptocurrencies – allow services to persist beyond the reach of national controls. Belgium, it notes, is not alone in facing such challenges. 

Enforcement and accountability is complicated 

If regulators describe a clear boundary, industry practitioners often see something more complex. Moses Swaibu is a former British professional footballer turned sports integrity advocate. He was once a promising defender at Crystal Palace and Lincoln City, but his career derailed through involvement in match-fixing, leading to a 16-month prison sentence in 2015.

After prison, he rebuilt his life, working with organisations like FIFA and the Premier League to fight corruption in sport. Drawing on his experience within betting market structures, he offers a glimpse into how operators navigate restricted jurisdictions. Central to this is the notion of the “grey market” – a term widely used but rarely defined with precision. For Swaibu, it reflects a system in which operators may not be formally licensed in a given territory, yet still achieve visibility through indirect means.  

Speaking to iGB, he notes that some betting companies “were being used to sponsor teams, but these are just ghost companies or shell companies”, highlighting the indirect ways operators can engage with sports. 

This presents a layered structure that complicates enforcement and accountability across Europe. It is one area the UK government is seeking to address by potentially banning unlicensed operators from signing gambling sponsorship deals with Premier League teams. The Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) opened a consultation in February asking stakeholders for feedback on a potential ban.

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said at the time: “When placing a bet on the big match, fans deserve to know the sites they’re using are properly regulated, with the right protections in place. It’s not right unlicensed gambling operators can sponsor some of our biggest football clubs, raising their profile and potentially drawing fans towards sites that don’t meet our regulatory standards.”

Swaibu underscores the knowledge gap that can exist between operators, athletes and regulators. “For me it’s very important to say that those who are uninformed are not aware of how things work,” he notes.

Viewed through this lens, the Hazard–Stake relationship appears less exceptional. Instead, it becomes an example of a broader model in which global operators leverage the commercial reach of sport to transcend national boundaries. 

For Swedish psychologist specialising in responsible gambling, Dr Jakob Jonsson of Sustainable Interaction, the ethical dimension of the Eden Hazard Stake case cuts through much of this complexity. He offers a different framing of the issue. 

“The main problem here is that these companies are active in markets they shouldn’t be active in,” he argues. For Jonsson, the distinction between licensed and unlicensed activity is not a grey area but a fundamental dividing line. If an operator lacks a licence in a jurisdiction, it should not be present there – whether directly or indirectly. 

This need for clarity extends to athletes. Asked whether they should be held accountable for promoting such operators, Jonsson says: “It’s a definite yes.” In his view, individuals have a responsibility to understand the nature of the companies they endorse, regardless of how campaigns are framed. 

He also highlights broader risks. He suggests there is “an extremely high density of gambling marketing within football”, blurring the distinction between the two industries. This is “not merely a matter of branding, but of exposure – particularly for younger audiences”. Social media campaigns, often global in reach and loosely regulated, make it difficult to prevent indirect targeting of underage users, Jonsson explains. 

Here, the Hazard case becomes more than a regulatory question. It raises concerns about consumer protection, duty of care and the ethical boundaries of sports marketing. 

A complicated reality 

Yet not all industry voices accept such a clear-cut interpretation. Helen Walton, co-founder and chief commercial officer of G Gaming, offers a more cautious assessment of athlete responsibility and regulatory design. 

“It’s hard to have a final judgment on this,” she says, noting that many crypto-based casinos now operate under hybrid models, holding licences in some jurisdictions while remaining unlicensed in others. In such a context, she asks: “Why shouldn’t an athlete with an international profile have a paid relationship with those?” 

At the same time, Walton acknowledges that such arrangements can act as “a slightly disingenuous fig leaf to try and cheaply attract local fans” in restricted markets. The ambiguity, in her view, is real – but so too is the potential for misuse. 

Her broader concern lies with the unintended consequences of regulation. “We have seen repeatedly that heavy-handed regulation massively grows the black market and increases harms,” she argues. Efforts to restrict advertising or access, if poorly calibrated, may drive consumers towards less transparent and less accountable operators. 

This perspective aligns, to some extent, with the regulator’s own emphasis on “channelisation” – the goal of directing consumers towards licensed providers. Both recognise that the effectiveness of regulation depends not only on prohibition, but on maintaining a competitive and attractive legal market. 

Enforcement in a borderless system 

Where all perspectives converge is on the difficulty of enforcement in a digital, globalised environment. The Belgian Gaming Commission describes a range of tools: blacklisting websites, blocking domains via internet service providers and cooperating with DNS authorities to restrict access. It is also exploring partnerships with payment providers to disrupt financial flows to unlicensed operators. 

Yet each measure encounters limits. Websites can migrate; users can circumvent blocks; and cryptocurrencies introduce additional layers of anonymity. As the Commission notes, operators often provide little reliable information about their identity or location. 

Swaibu’s description of indirect structures and Jonsson’s concerns about under-regulated digital channels reinforce this picture. Walton, meanwhile, suggests social media platforms and influencers could be potential targets for enforcement– but cautions that these too operate across borders. 

“I think most enforcement is doomed to failure,” she says.  “Advertising platforms such as Facebook and X, and influencers are ‘pinch points’ where government can try and enforce regulations. But once again such action can come with unintended consequences – influencers are hardly tied to a single country any more than crypto casinos are.”  

Athletes play a role in shaping visibility and legitimacy

The result is a system in which regulation is inherently reactive, while innovation – whether technological or commercial – remains proactive. Within this system, athletes occupy a distinct position. They are not operators, yet they play a crucial role in shaping visibility and legitimacy. Their global followings make them effective conduits for marketing that transcends national restrictions. For regulators, this raises questions of liability; for ethical experts it raises questions of responsibility. And for the industry it is a question of practicality and fairness. 

Jonsson emphasises the need for a “strong ethical compass” among athletes and sports organisations, warning of risks to “their trademark” and integrity. Walton suggests that influencers and ambassadors should consider not only legal compliance but also outcomes – such as whether their promotions are appropriately age-gated. 

Both perspectives acknowledge that the current framework places significant responsibility on individuals operating within a system that offers limited guidance and uneven enforcement. 

Growth, competition and sustainability 

Underlying the debate is a broader question about the future trajectory of the gambling industry. Rapid growth, particularly in newly opened markets, has been a defining feature of recent years. But Jonsson anticipates a shift towards greater competition and stabilisation, with ethical conduct becoming a differentiating factor. 

“I’m quite sure that this will be possible to do still sticking to regulation but also their own ethics,” he says, suggesting that sustainable growth depends on aligning commercial incentives with responsible practices. 

Walton argues that such alignment requires cooperation between regulators and industry. Consumer protection, she notes: “only works where consumers remain within regulated environments”. Achieving that outcome demands policies that balance restriction with accessibility – encouraging legal participation while discouraging migration to the black market. 

Eden Hazard Stake case: A stress test for the system 

The case involving Eden Hazard and Stake therefore serves as more than a regulatory case. It can also be viewed as a stress test of the current model. 

On one side stands a legal framework that is, in the words of the Belgian Gaming Commission, “very clear and extensive”. On another, an industry that operates across jurisdictions, often exploiting the gaps between them. Bridging the two are athletes, influencers and digital platforms that blur the boundaries of national marketing regulations. 

Ethical perspectives offer clarity, but not always solutions. Commercial realities also complicate accountability. Regulators have tools, but face persistent constraints. The resulting picture is one of a system where the lines between legal and illegal, responsible and irresponsible, are continually tested.