With the arrival of new leadership at the National Office for Gambling (ONJN), the regulator has repeatedly signalled its intention to introduce significant changes to Romania’s gambling industry. Many of these reforms were expected to begin taking shape from 2026.
Today, a number of initiatives are being actively discussed in the country, affecting nearly every aspect of the market – from granting municipalities greater authority over gambling venues and raising the minimum gambling age to potential advertising restrictions, changes to the tax system and even discussions about the future structure of the regulator itself.
Dan Ghita, Chairman of the gambling association Rombet, shared insights with SBC Eurasia on the latest developments in Romania’s gambling market.
– One of the most debated measures is allowing municipalities to restrict or ban gambling venues. What impact could this have?
– At first glance, this may seem like a strong, locally responsive policy. In reality, it risks creating only an illusion of control. International experience shows that bans do not eliminate demand – they push it into the black market.
In Romania, this could drive players to illegal operators, reduce tax revenues, and weaken oversight. At the same time, only the regulated market provides safeguards such as identity checks and responsible gambling tools.
For the land-based sector, the consequences could include market fragmentation, reduced investment, and potential closures of compliant operators. A more effective approach is targeted regulation – controlling density, locations, and compliance — rather than outright prohibition.
– There are also discussions about raising the minimum gambling age to 21. How effective could this measure be in terms of player protection?
– The measure is aimed at protecting younger players, but its effectiveness depends on enforcement, not just the legal threshold. It can reduce exposure among higher-risk groups and reinforce responsible gambling messaging.
However, without proper controls, it risks becoming symbolic and pushing players toward illegal channels where no age verification is in place. That is why it should be accompanied by strong enforcement and educational measures.
– How does the industry view the introduction of a centralised self-exclusion system?
– It is widely seen as a positive and necessary step. A centralised system closes gaps between operators and makes self-exclusion a universal protection tool.
The industry generally supports this initiative because it enhances credibility and trust, creates a level playing field, and aligns Romania with best practices in mature European markets.
In terms of preparedness, larger operators are already technically and operationally ready, as many operate in jurisdictions with similar systems. The main challenges are likely to be integration, data synchronisation, and regulatory clarity.
– Another topic currently under discussion is the potential tightening of gambling advertising rules. Where do you believe the balance should lie between consumer protection and allowing licensed operators to promote their products?
– Advertising plays a key role in directing players to licensed operators. Excessive restrictions can reduce their visibility and strengthen illegal brands.
The balance should focus on limiting aggressive or misleading content, protecting vulnerable groups, and allowing responsible communication by licensed operators.
– At the same time, discussions around possible tax changes have been ongoing since last summer. How does the industry assess these initiatives?
– The overall sentiment is cautious. Romania already has a relatively high tax burden, and further increases could reduce market attractiveness, discourage investment, and push players toward the black market.
A sustainable tax policy should prioritise stability, predictability, and the competitiveness of the legal market over short-term fiscal gains.
– How seriously are proposals to reform or abolish the ONJN taken?
– Reform is generally seen positively if it improves transparency and efficiency. However, abolishing the regulator would create significant risks. A functioning regulator is essential for market stability, consumer protection, and enforcement against illegal operators.
The key is not whether ONJN exists in its current form, but whether Romania has a strong, credible, and independent regulatory authority, along with clear rules and consistent enforcement.
– How do you see the market developing in the coming years?
– The Romanian market is at a critical turning point. One scenario involves overregulation and fragmentation – more bans, higher taxes, and stricter limits – which could expand the black market and reduce state revenues.
The second scenario is balanced regulation: a strong but coherent national framework, controlled local input, not full decentralisation, investment in responsible gambling tools, and stable and competitive taxation.
This approach would preserve channelisation into the legal market, maintain fiscal contributions, and strengthen consumer protection.
It is important that public policies should be judged not by their intentions, but by their measurable outcomes.
Measures such as total bans or excessive restrictions may be politically attractive in the short term, but they are producing the exact opposite effects – less control, less protection, and more illegal activity.
The real challenge for Romania is not to eliminate gambling, but to keep it within a regulated, transparent, and controlled environment.
Don’t forget to subscribe to our Telegram channel!
