The debate over a possible ban on beer advertising may appear to be yet another dispute between advocates of public health protection and the alcohol industry. From the perspective of sport and commercial law, however, the issue is much broader. It concerns not only the ability to broadcast advertisements, but also the future of contracts under which sponsors finance clubs, sports associations, athletes and events in exchange for the right to communicate their involvement.
Two parliamentary bills amending the Act on Upbringing in Sobriety and Counteracting Alcoholism are currently being considered by the Polish Sejm, under parliamentary papers Nos. 2007 and 2010. One proposes a complete ban on the advertising and promotion of all alcoholic beverages, including beer, while the other seeks to introduce an absolute ban on alcohol advertising.
The bills have been referred to the Parliamentary Health Committee, which was due to consider the report of a special subcommittee on 29 July 2026. The proposed measures are not yet binding law, but the direction of the legislative process justifies opening a discussion about their potential consequences for the sponsorship market.
The starting point should be a distinction between advertising, promotion and sponsorship. The Act defines the advertising of alcoholic beverages as the public dissemination of their trademarks and graphic symbols and, in certain circumstances, the names and symbols of producers, where this serves to popularise the designation of an alcoholic beverage.
Promotion includes, among other things, public tastings, the distribution of promotional items, sales incentives and other forms of publicly encouraging the purchase of alcohol.
Sponsorship is defined separately. It means the direct or indirect financing or co-financing of the activities of individuals or organisations for the purpose of promoting, maintaining or enhancing the reputation of the sponsor, its branding, activities, goods or services, in exchange for communicating information about the sponsorship. Informing the public about sponsorship consists of displaying the sponsor’s name or trademark in connection with the sponsorship arrangement.
This distinction is not merely academic. Sponsorship is a commercial relationship: one party provides money, goods or services, while the other delivers promotional and image-related benefits. These may include displaying the sponsor’s branding on sportswear, advertising boards, press conference backdrops, websites, broadcast materials or in the name of an event.
This does not mean, however, that every display of a sponsor’s branding automatically falls outside the rules governing alcohol advertising. The legal classification does not depend on the title of the agreement or on whether the parties use the term “partner”. What matters is the actual form and purpose of the communication.
The same display may be regarded as information about sponsorship and, in certain circumstances, also as advertising, promotion or an attempt to circumvent a statutory prohibition.
Current legislation does not provide complete freedom to advertise beer. Article 13¹ of the Act introduces a general ban on the advertising and promotion of alcoholic beverages, while providing an exception for beer. This exception is conditional.
Beer advertising may not be directed at or depict minors. It may not associate alcohol consumption with physical fitness, driving, professional or personal success, work, education, relaxation or sexual attractiveness. Nor may it encourage excessive consumption or portray abstinence negatively.
The Act also restricts the channels, timing and form of advertising. Beer advertising on radio and television is generally prohibited between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m., except for advertising carried out by the organiser of a professional or competitive sporting event while the event is taking place. Separate provisions regulate the communication of sponsorship by producers and distributors of alcoholic beverages.
A distinction should also be drawn between sponsoring a sporting event or mass event and sponsoring a club, athlete or sports organisation. In the first case, the Act expressly regulates the communication of sponsorship. In the second, the legal assessment may focus more closely on whether a particular display of the sponsor’s branding constitutes advertising, promotion or an attempt to circumvent the alcohol advertising ban.
Does an advertising ban therefore amount to a sponsorship ban? Not necessarily. In principle, a company could still finance a club, sports association or event. The key question, however, is what it would receive in return.
Commercial sponsorship is not a donation. A sponsor pays not only for the right to use the title of sponsor, but above all for brand visibility, access to a particular audience, image-building opportunities, the ability to use the club’s branding and the activation of the partnership through marketing activities.
If new legislation prevented the sponsor’s branding from being publicly displayed through the most important channels, formally preserving the possibility of entering into sponsorship agreements might have limited practical significance. Sponsorship without communication about the sponsor loses a substantial part of its commercial value.
A ban on beer advertising should not, however, automatically be equated with a ban on every form of involvement by brewing companies in sport. The final wording of the legislation, the scope of the provisions governing sponsorship communications, the definitions of advertising and promotion, and the transitional arrangements will all be important.
It may also matter whether the displayed branding relates to a specific beer brand, the producer’s corporate name, a corporate logo or another product. Existing legislation seeks to prevent circumvention of advertising restrictions by promoting products, services or businesses using branding identical or similar to that of an alcoholic beverage.
Simply changing a logo or replacing the product brand with the producer’s name will therefore not always be a legally safe solution. In practice, the assessment will depend not only on the sponsor’s formal name, but also on the associations created by the sign, colour scheme, slogan, visual design and context in which it is displayed.
New legislation would not automatically terminate all existing sponsorship agreements. Each contract would require individual analysis, taking into account its duration, the agreed package of benefits, and provisions concerning changes in law, renegotiation, substitute benefits and early termination.
If a particular contractual obligation became legally prohibited, it could not continue to be performed merely because it had been agreed before the new prohibition entered into force.
The civil-law consequences would depend on whether the entire agreement or only some of its obligations became impossible to perform. In such circumstances, the provisions of the Polish Civil Code concerning impossibility of performance and the settlement of reciprocal contracts could apply.
Where a change in law does not make performance impossible but fundamentally alters the commercial purpose of the agreement, Article 357¹ of the Civil Code may potentially be considered. In practice, however, this is an exceptional legal mechanism. Its statutory requirements must be demonstrated, and it does not result in an automatic amendment of the contract.
The risk is not limited to disputes over remuneration. Article 45² of the Act provides that conducting alcohol advertising or promotion, or communicating sponsorship in breach of Article 13¹, may result in a fine ranging from PLN 10,000 to PLN 500,000.
Where the offence is committed in the course of a company’s business activities, liability may attach to the individual responsible for commissioning or conducting the advertising, rather than solely to the company itself.
Clubs, sponsors, agencies, event organisers and broadcasters should therefore already be reviewing the structure of their long-term agreements. Contracts should contain provisions addressing changes in law, renegotiation of sponsorship packages, substitute benefits, the valuation of such benefits, proportional reductions in remuneration, the repayment of advance payments and the right to terminate the agreement where a core promotional benefit becomes unlawful.
Protecting public health is a legitimate objective for lawmakers. It does not, however, remove the obligation to create regulations that are precise, proportionate and predictable.
The sponsorship market is based on contracts concluded for several seasons and on budgets planned well in advance. Properly designed transitional provisions and a realistic period for adapting existing cooperation models will therefore be crucial.
The debate over beer advertising reveals an issue that extends far beyond the future of a single industry. A sponsor may still wish to finance sport, and a club may still need the sponsor’s money. However, if the law removes the ability to tell the public who the sponsor is and which brand it represents, the fundamental commercial rationale of the partnership changes.
The question is therefore not merely whether beer advertising may be prohibited. It is also whether sponsorship can meaningfully be preserved while depriving the sponsor of the principal benefit for which it pays.
Source: CEO.com.pl
