Swedish gamblers continue to primarily choose licensed operators. However, leakage to black market sites remains an issue.

The regulator’s latest assessment puts overall channelization for the competitive market at 85% for 2024, a small step down from 86% in 2023.

In parallel, the share of people who say they used licensed brands is higher than the money-based view, which tells you where heavier play tends to leak 85% channelization in 2024.

The gap between players and spend is central to the story. Survey data suggests most people interact with licensed sites. Internet traffic, when adjusted for turnover, shows a lower share for certain products.

New Methodology Gives a Clear Picture

Sweden’s gambling authority Spelinspektionen updated how it measures channelization. It combined a nationally representative player survey with internet traffic analysis. It also removed third-party model inputs that caused confusion in prior years.

The survey captured 5,767 respondents, then checked their stated brands against a mapped list of legal and illegal sites. That additional validation reduces the ‘uncertainty’ often caused by ‘don’t know’ responses.

The traffic analysis excluded skin-betting and other anomalies to maintain focus on conventional gambling activity.

For readers comparing annually, treat 2024 as an improvement compared to 2023. The regulator is explicit that any channelization figure is an estimate. Yet the triangulation here is more informative than a single data feed.

Online Casinos vs Sportsbooks

Product mix explains the tension. Betting continues to show strong channelization in Sweden, whereas online casinos do not. The latest ranges put betting around the mid 90s with casinos roughly 10 to 20 points lower.

That spread appears in both the player and traffic indicators, which implies the signal is robust rather than a quirk of one method.

For teams, budgeting media or retention spend, this split is not just a compliance talking point. It shapes acquisition unit economics, bonuses, and the degree to which cross-sell can be nurtured within the licensed funnel.

Why Leakage Persists

Swedish consumers who drift outside the licensing regime tend to cite three reasons.

• They believe they have better chances of winning.
• They are blocked by self-exclusion through Spelpaus and look elsewhere to keep playing.
• More aggressive offers and loyalty rewards in the unlicensed space.

Each reason points to a different friction: perceived value, access, and incentives.

A practical reading for operators is simple. If you cannot compete on unlimited incentives and you cannot serve players who have self-excluded, then the perceived focus on core experience matters more. That means faster payouts, clearer limits, smarter nudges, and content that feels fresh without pushing vulnerable play.

What Industry Leaders are Saying

Sweden’s Online Gaming Association has sharpened its message on casino leakage. The association supports stronger enforcement against illegal supply. It argues that excessively strict rules on the legal side make it harder to win the value battle.

See the position statements from BOS for deeper context on the quarter of casino gambling that’s leaking.

What Operators Can Do About It

Here are near-term actions that align with the data and avoid overly optimistic expectations of sweeping regulatory change:

• Tighten value on the moments that matter, especially first payout and first withdrawal limit change.
• Use product sequencing to reinforce licensed market benefits, such as guaranteed dispute resolution and stable RTP disclosures.
• Treat AML and affordability prompts as UX nets, not pop-ups. Clear human language reduces breakage.
• Invest in live ops and CRM that celebrate session quality over volume rather than only bet volume.
• Build partnerships that showcase game integrity and independent testing signals, which offshore rivals cannot credibly match.

Implications for Compliance and Policy Teams

If the casino sector is the weak point, enforcement and payment friction will be debated again. The regulator’s mapping of more than 2000 unlicensed sites and the way social media drives traffic shows the scope of the job.

Because of this, payment blocking, DNS actions, and better data sharing across agencies is paramount for all compliance departments in the industry.

Two additional implications stand out for in-house policy leads. First, consistent definitions help. Sweden’s report is careful about whether it is counting spend or players, online subsets, or the full competitive market.

Second, cross-border learning still matters. Other European regulators are wrestling with similar dynamics and are publishing more precise distinctions between player-based and spend-based channelization.

Benchmarks Across Europe

Sweden is not alone in balancing high overall channelization with stubborn pockets of leakage. The Netherlands Gambling Authority, for example, has reported a channelization figure in the low 90s, while also cautioning that high-spending players may still wander.

Methodological choices and policy tweaks ripple quickly through these numbers, so benchmarking should focus on trends and product splits rather than a single figure.

For operators with Nordic and Benelux exposure, the lesson is to plan for volatility in enforcement and incentives. What works in one market can be constrained in another within a single budgeting cycle.

Going Forward

A government-appointed review is set to bring forward proposals on the scope of Sweden’s Gambling Act.

Industry groups are pushing for a tougher stance on illegal supply while also asking for a refresh of rules limiting the licensed market’s ability to compete.

The direction of travel is clear — policymakers want a higher channelization rate. The open question is how much of the lift should come from stricter enforcement versus calibrated flexibility on legal incentives.