How Nordic Countries Assess Offshore Gambling

How Nordic Countries Assess Offshore Gambling

A new academic study suggests that Nordic gambling regulators may still be operating with an incomplete understanding of the online gambling market that exists outside licensed frameworks. According to the research, current efforts to quantify offshore gambling activity are shaped by limited data access, uneven research practices, and figures that are often repeated without sufficient scrutiny.

The study, published in the peer-reviewed journal PLOS One, reviews more than a decade of research into offshore gambling activity across Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway. Conducted by scholars from leading academic and public health institutions in the region, the review examines 32 studies released between 2010 and 2024. Its main conclusion is cautious but direct: there is no established method for reliably measuring the scale or development of online gambling beyond national licensing systems.

Rather than identifying a single flaw, the researchers point to a broader structural problem. Offshore gambling, they argue, is difficult to define, difficult to track, and deeply entangled with political and regulatory priorities. Estimates are often produced under pressure to inform policy debates, yet the tools used to create them are rarely examined in detail. This creates a situation where figures gain authority through repetition rather than through clear methodological foundations.

One of the central issues highlighted in the review is the reliance on a small number of commercial data providers. In many Nordic countries, official estimates of black-market activity closely align with figures from H2 Gambling Capital. While regulators and lawmakers widely reference these numbers, the authors note that the assumptions behind them are not fully transparent. As a result, even public authorities may be basing decisions on models they do not fully understand.

This lack of clarity becomes especially relevant in discussions around channeling, a concept often used to evaluate whether national gambling frameworks are functioning as intended. Channeling rates are frequently cited as evidence that players are either staying within regulated systems or moving toward unlicensed alternatives. The study questions whether existing measurement approaches can meaningfully capture such shifts. Without consistent data and shared standards, changes in the unregulated market can easily be overstated or misinterpreted.

The review also examines how black-market estimates function in regulatory and political debates. The authors suggest that offshore gambling figures are not neutral. They are shaped by the choice of data sources, by methodological decisions, and by the interests of the actors involved. In some cases, estimates support predetermined narratives about market risk or regulatory failure, rather than offering an independent assessment of player behavior.

A Swedish study cited in the review illustrates this problem. It claimed that users of unlicensed gambling websites spend between ten and twenty times more than those who gamble on licensed platforms. According to the authors of the PLOS One review, this figure lacks a clear empirical basis and is not supported by transparent data analysis. When such claims circulate without sufficient explanation, they risk influencing public debate without evidence.

Another key finding challenges the idea that offshore gambling exists as a separate and clearly defined market. Drawing on data from Finland, the researchers note that nearly all individuals who reported gambling on unlicensed sites also participated in the regulated market. In these cases, licensed operators still accounted for a substantial share of total spending. This overlap suggests that offshore gambling often complements, rather than replaces, licensed play, complicating efforts to measure it as a standalone phenomenon.

At the same time, the review identifies patterns relevant to regulators concerned with consumer protection. Offshore gambling activity appears to be concentrated in higher-risk products, such as fast-paced online casino games and certain forms of sports betting. While this observation does not, by itself, quantify the size of the black market, it provides context for why offshore play attracts regulatory attention despite the uncertainty surrounding estimates.

Throughout the study, the authors return to the question of evidence quality. They argue that the current landscape of offshore gambling research is fragmented, with studies relying on surveys, traffic data, financial estimates, or proxy indicators that are rarely combined systematically. This fragmentation makes it difficult to compare results across countries or over time, limiting the usefulness of the data for long-term policy planning.

To address these challenges, the researchers call for a more structured and transparent approach to measurement. Rather than relying on single-source estimates, they suggest combining multiple data sources, including population surveys, anonymised transaction data, and statistics from support services. Financial data, while sensitive, could play a role, particularly in jurisdictions that use payment blocking as part of their enforcement strategies.