The rapid expansion of the Romanian betting industry has caused the government to take action, with gambling regulations being overhauled to allow cities to close or restrict betting shops and slot machine halls. 

This is due to the regularity of gambling addiction across the country, with ministers calling it ‘a public health problem’. Over 200 localities will have greater power over the prominence of the gambling industry and at least four cities have already confirmed plans to ban gambling. 

Yet gambling reforms have been a heavily discussed subject across the country for some time now. Measures like restricting advertising and increasing the legal gambling age to 21 have come to the fore as the government tightens its grip on the industry. 

To discuss the latest major governmental move, Borut Petek, Chief Global Affairs Officer at Super Technologies, the leading private betting operator in Romania as owner of the Superbet brand, spoke to SBC News.

What impact do you see this having on the development of Romania’s gaming sector moving forward?

This could shape Romania’s gaming sector for years to come. The key question is not whether the state has the right to regulate, it clearly does. The real question is whether regulation keeps demand inside the legal, licensed and taxable market or pushes more of it into the black market.

In public-policy terms, the critical metric is channelisation: how much activity remains within the regulated system, where taxes are paid and consumer safeguards actually work. Romania still remains within the legal market today, but the macro developments are concerning, with black-market activity rising meaningfully year after year. The real risk is that poorly calibrated measures do not reduce demand, they reduce control. 

This matters well beyond the sector itself. Between 2023 and 2025, Super Technologies contributed approximately €1.13bn (£970m) in taxes to the Romanian state budget. So, this is not just a gaming issue. It is about tax revenues, sport sponsorships, jobs, consumer protection and whether the state keeps activity where it can actually supervise it.

Could this accelerate a shift away from retail betting and towards online betting in Romania?

It could, yes, but let me be very clear: we do not support blanket closures of retail venues, and we do not see forced substitution from retail to online as good policy. Our position is not retail versus online. Our position is legal versus illegal.

A healthy regulated market should include both responsibly operated land-based venues and licensed online channels. If retail access becomes more restricted, some consumer activity will inevitably move online. The real question is where it goes. If it stays with licensed operators, the state keeps oversight, tax collection and safeguards. If it goes into the illegal spectrum, Romania loses all three.

Is the government justified in its decision to overhaul the gambling framework with an emergency decree?

Governments have every right, and indeed a responsibility, to regulate gambling. Concerns around problem gambling, underage access and venue density are legitimate and should be addressed seriously.

The issue, however, is not regulation itself, but the regulatory predictability and coherence of its implementation. For long-term investors, the key concern is not the principle of regulation or taxation, which is a sovereign prerogative. 

It is predictability, consultation, economic modelling and transition. When extraordinary legislative tools become routine instruments of structural policy change, markets begin to reassess governance risk.

That matters especially in a market like Romania, which is attracting major international capital and advancing through the final phase of OECD accession. Our business is backed by major US institutional capital following a €1.3bn refinancing in 2025. 

Therefore, when we speak about predictability, we are not speaking only as an operator. We are also speaking from the perspective of long-term institutional capital deployed into Romania.

What happens if local powers start closing down land-based venues for good?

We do not believe permanent blanket closure of land-based venues is the right policy answer. Retail is an important part of the regulated market and, when properly supervised, it plays a legitimate economic and consumer-protection role.

If closures were nevertheless to happen at scale, gambling activity would not simply disappear. If people want to gamble, many will still find a way to do it. 

The real question is whether they do so inside a regulated system or outside it. Some activity would move to licensed online channels, but a meaningful share could also migrate into the illegal market.

There is also a structural issue here. Romania has historically operated through a nationally licensed framework. Once market access becomes increasingly dependent on local authorisation, a discretionary municipal layer is introduced into what was previously a centrally administered system. 

That creates fragmentation, uneven implementation and less predictability for operators with a nationwide footprint.

Can such a development reduce problem gambling rates given that offshore online platforms still remain accessible, although with some caveats?

It cannot reduce problem gambling rates on its own. Restricting access to legal land-based venues does not automatically reduce harm if offshore platforms remain easily accessible. 

It may change where gambling takes place, but not necessarily whether it takes place or how harmful it becomes.

Responsible gambling tools only work inside the regulated system. Licensed operators provide deposit limits, self-exclusion, age verification and systems that detect risky behaviors early on. 

Those safeguards exist only in the legal market. By contrast, the black market is not simply an unregulated commercial space. It is a criminal environment, inherently more vulnerable to money laundering, terrorist financing and organised crime because the controls that exist in the licensed sector, including KYC, AML monitoring and reporting obligations, are absent by definition in the illegal space.

If the real policy objective is to reduce harm, the answer is not simply to narrow the legal market. It is to narrow the illegal market at a faster pace. 

Given that those players who get their access restricted to land-based venues will probably migrate online, do you envision more favorable offers from the licensed iGaming sector to try and keep them in the white market?

In any digital market, licensed operators will naturally try to keep customers within the regulated ecosystem. That should not be seen negatively in itself. 

From a public-policy perspective, it is clearly better for a player to remain with a licensed operator rather than to disappear into the black market.

The real issue is competitive balance. Online gambling is a digital market and switching between platforms takes seconds. 

If licensed operators are constrained too heavily in pricing, product design, promotional flexibility or customer engagement, while illegal operators face none of those, the market tilts toward the black market.

We have seen this elsewhere in Europe. Where the legal offer becomes too constrained or uncompetitive, leakage to offshore alternatives grows. 

The lesson is simple: competitiveness is not a commercial luxury. It is part of consumer protection, because a legal market that is not viable cannot channelise demand effectively.

In what way does that impact your recent acquisition of the MaxBet Group?

Our strategic rationale remains unchanged. We continue to see Romania and the wider CEE region as markets with strong long-term potential. We are building a diversified, technology-led entertainment business with deep roots in regulated and predictable markets.

At the same time, large-scale long-term investment depends on regulatory predictability. This is particularly relevant for a company like ours, which is backed by major US institutional investors. 

Capital of that kind places a premium on transparent legislative process, coherent rulemaking and legal certainty. As such, the issue is not whether Romania remains attractive in principle. It is whether future investment decisions are made in an environment that signals stability and rules-based governance.