Can Eastern Europe build regulated growth under offshore pressure?

Eastern Europe is often described as a region with strong growth potential. Demand exists, and markets are less saturated than Western Europe, especially from an SEO perspective. At the same time, regulated casino markets are developing alongside offshore casinos that are already visible, localised and easy to find.

The offshore competition is not a problem by default. It can become concerning, however, when offshore casinos targeting regulated markets sit outside the local licensing and player protection framework. This is why Eastern Europe cannot be treated as a singular market. States like Poland, Slovakia, Czechia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Ukraine have different gambling laws and face slightly different kinds of offshore pressure.

Where the markets differ

In Poland, online gambling is regulated, but aside from sports betting and lotteries, online gambling is controlled strictly by the state. The Polish Ministry of Finance’s official list shows that Totalizator Sportowy is the only authorised online casino operator through totalcasino.Pl. Private licensed operators are mainly present in the separate sports betting market.

Commercially, that creates an obvious opening for offshore casinos. They can appear more varied and interesting to players. Poland’s illegal-domain register and penalties for participation in illegal online gambling suggest that Poland treats this issue seriously, but enforcement still comes after exposure has already happened.

Hungary is also not a broadly open online casino market. Although some online gambling licences are available to European Economic Area-based companies, online casinos remain tied to Hungarian land-based casinos.

However, players do not think in business structures. If offshore casinos are available and offer a simpler route to the product than the local framework, they become part of the practical market, whether or not they are part of the regulated market.

Slovakia and Czechia are different again because both have clearer local structures and enforcement tools. Slovakia regulates online gambling under Act No. 30/2019 and has a gambling regulatory authority, but it does not have heavily restrictive advertising laws.

At the same time, Slovak authorities take steps to block websites operated by gambling companies without a Slovak licence. Czechia also keeps an open list of unapproved online games, as well as blocked websites, bank accounts and apps.

These actions show that the states are actively drawing a boundary around the regulated market. Still, that does not erase offshore exposure; arguably, it has quite the opposite effect.

Casino Guru’s database of online casinos shows 19 licensed operators in Slovakia compared with 232 offshore brands available in Slovak. In Czechia, there are 27 licensed operators versus 392 offshore brands available in the local language.

Bulgaria, for example, has 19 licensed operators and 135 offshore sites available in the local language; Ukraine has 18 vs 193; and Romania has 42 local operators competing in the market with 212 offshore, localised brands.

Even if this does not reflect traffic, revenue or search dominance, it does suggest large local-language offshore targeting around these European markets that results in player participation.

What offshore targeting means commercially

Although offshore participation is often connected with player protection risks, it is also a commercial liability for locally licensed operators and affiliates. Regulated casinos have obligations like taxes, licence fees and advertising rules, but offshore casinos might not adhere to the same rules.

For example, Romania has a more open licensing structure than Poland, but local participation is expensive and heavily regulated. Advertising is more restricted than in some other markets, which means the local licence creates credibility and protection on the one hand, and costs on the other.

This difference can really influence visibility and competitiveness, with offshore casinos often having the advantage. They are often able to offer larger bonuses and products that local regulations limit and have a more aggressive business strategy.

When players find a casino at the top of the search results in their language, they often see it as legitimate. If an affiliate page recommends it or they see it in advertisements, players often skip over verifying licensing, self-exclusion options or other safety features.

If the offshore offer is easier to find or promote, local operators lose the search battle, and the regulated market has to work harder to explain why local licensing matters.

Affiliates in the middle

Affiliates are often where the player first meets the market, whether through a review page, a bonus comparison, a complaint page or a “best casino” article. In Eastern European markets, they send traffic and inform the players’ choice at the same time.

A compliant affiliate page can help players understand the difference between a locally licensed casino, an offshore casino licensed elsewhere and a high-risk site without a credible licence. Or they can seize the opportunity to monetise the offer and demand.

Offshore casinos often offer higher commissions to their partners, a wider variety of products and fewer promotional restrictions for affiliates. While they might seem to succeed in search rankings and achieve quick conversions, this approach could potentially harm trust over time.

This is because unfair terms and conditions may be harder to challenge, and if the operator becomes unresponsive, the player may have no practical means of resolving the issue. Offshore or unlicensed sites also do not provide national self-exclusion or other responsible gambling tools or safety nets for players struggling with problem gambling.

Sustainability as a long-term growth strategy

While a market dominated by offshore targeting and participation can look commercially attractive in the short term, the central question remains: can their locally licensed casinos compete with offshore casinos and grow?

I would say the short answer is yes, but it needs to be truly sustainable all around. In regulated markets, sustainability must be part of the commercial strategy. Local casinos need to be able to prove to players what they gain from choosing a locally licensed option: clear legal status, local supervision, better player protection tools and more predictable standards for advertising and payments.

To do that, the legal and player protection framework needs to be reasonably set up and executed effectively. Regulators play a key role by shaping the conditions under which licensed operators compete. If the rules for the licensed product are too limited, too expensive to promote or too difficult to explain, offshore casinos will naturally fill the gap.

Regulators and operators should not be on opposite sides of the barricade here. A healthy, regulated market needs both enforcement and competitive conditions for licensed brands to earn player trust.

Meanwhile, affiliates should also embrace sustainability and compliance, help explain the difference between local casinos and offshore, unlicensed or illegal casinos, while remaining commercially viable and trustworthy.

The bottom line is – regulated markets in Eastern Europe cannot grow if their local options are present but commercially drowned out. And right now, it seems like they are just that.