Facts on regulation
Measuring Gambling Harm in Europe
Lessons from National Surveys in UK – Netherlands
Intro
Across Europe, regulators, policymakers, and industry leaders are striving to understand how best to measure and address gambling harm. This article compares two of the continent’s most influential data sources — the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) and the Dutch NOGA Online Barometer.
These surveys inform public policy, industry practice, and establish benchmarks for responsible gambling measurement.
Measuring Gambling Risk — Data Insights from the UK and the Netherlands
Market Surveillance and Regulatory Oversight
Why focus on these two
The GSGB is recognized for its methodological rigor, independence, and transparent reporting, making it a reference point for British policymakers and informing international discussions on gambling harm.
The NOGA Online Barometer is notable for its emphasis on market channelisation and consumer sentiment within a rapidly evolving Dutch gambling landscape, where regulatory tightening and unlicensed competition remain under close monitoring by the Kansspelautoriteit.
Together, these datasets highlight both the strengths and limitations of European measurement approaches: the GSGB demonstrates how survey design influences risk estimation, while the NOGA Barometer illustrates how policy adjustments can reshape market and consumer dynamics.
Commentary from licensed operators in both jurisdictions reflects ongoing debate over how regulation affects player protection and market balance.
Making sense of the numbers
Interpreting trends is far from straightforward. Why the jump in the UK’s problem gambling rate? Much of it is due to the GSGB’s shift to web and self-completion survey methods, which consistently yield higher risk estimates than face-to-face interviews. As Professors Patrick Sturgis and Jouni Kuha of the London School of Economics explain:
ACADEMIC PERSPECTIVE
“Surveys conducted online produce substantially higher estimates of problem gambling compared with in-person interview surveys. This is because online surveys, whether using probability or non-probability sampling, overrepresent people who are more likely to gamble online and to gamble frequently.”
— Sturgis & Kuha, LSE, Public Health (2022)
In the Netherlands, recent changes in channelisation rates appear to reflect both market responses to new regulations and structural limits in how player migration to grey-market sites is tracked. While the NOGA Barometer provides early warning of such shifts, its findings—like those from the GSGB—depend on survey design and inherent data restrictions. Dutch and British regulators alike advise interpreting headline rates with caution and attention to context.
EU flags outside a contemporary government building, symbolizing coordinated policy efforts on gambling harm and market oversight.
The Limits of European Comparison
Any temptation to draw cross-border comparisons deserves skepticism. Countries employ varied instruments (PGSI, DSM, or their own), grapple with different survey designs, and disagree on definitions for “problem gambling.” Even where the same tool is used, method—whether online, in-person, or telephone—makes a marked difference.
A review by the European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) found that reported rates ranged from just 0.2% in the UK to over 6% in Latvia—not because of real differences in risk, but because of who is surveyed, how often, and the phrasing of questions. Until meaningful harmonization occurs, apparent league tables tell us as much about technique as about behaviour.
Industry and Operator Reactions
Legal operators in both the UK and the Netherlands remain advocates for evidence-based, effective consumer protection. But they also warn against sudden regulatory lurches anchored to changing survey top-lines. In the UK, some argue that policy must account for shifts in methodology as well as in the market itself; in the Netherlands, the erosion of channelisation is already hitting the commercial viability of compliant brands. As a spokesperson for BetCity notes:
INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE
“We support stricter consumer protection, but we see – in real time – migration of high-value customers to providers we cannot monitor, tax, or supervise. The regulatory and compliance burden for legal operators is rising just as our advantage over the black market is eroding.”
— BetCity spokesperson, Gaming Intelligence
Submitting a rating on a mobile device, with casino chips and a roulette wheel in the background—highlighting the importance of consumer experience in gambling regulation.
Consumer Experience and Policy Dilemma
Beyond the debate among experts and executives, the experience of consumers across both markets is shifting. UK players continue to benefit from a stable legal sector, but new restrictions—like affordability checks and deposit limits—are closely watched for their impact on behaviour and engagement.
In the Netherlands, falling channelisation has been accompanied by rising consumer confusion over which sites are regulated and new frustration around tighter controls.
Will other European countries follow?
The shifting regulatory landscapes in Britain and the Netherlands have not gone unnoticed elsewhere. Across the continent, national authorities are watching closely—some with interest in the GSGB model of frequent, wide-reaching harm measurement, others warning against the pitfalls seen in Dutch channelisation.
Countries including France, Spain, and Germany are engaged in their own regulatory debates, with pressure mounting from both consumer protection advocates and industry lobbies. Several regulators have expressed interest in more harmonised or “real-time” data collection, inspired in part by the GSGB’s transparency and timeliness. However, resistance persists, particularly where recent reforms—such as those in the Netherlands—appear to have sent more gamblers to unlicensed or offshore operators.
European forums, notably the Gambling Regulators European Forum (GREF) and the European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA), continue to advocate for more coordinated methodologies and metrics. Some expect further tightening of advertising and deposit rules, while others caution that any changes must be carefully calibrated to avoid repeating the Dutch experience of declining market channelisation.
Ultimately, whether Europe coalesces around a new model will depend on balancing two risks: under-reaction to emerging evidence, and overcorrection that undermines the promise of effective, regulated gambling markets.
Conclusion
Both the GSGB and the NOGA Online Barometer illustrate the power—and the perils—of measurement.
Trends in gambling harm, and responses from policymakers and industry, now turn as much on how the numbers are produced as on what they reveal.
For now, policymakers would do well to heed the evidence while remembering that the most important context may be the limitations of the data itself.
Further Reading
Gambling Commission – New research on gambling survey estimates (2025)
OSR – Review of the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (2025)
Gambling Commission – Guidance on statistics
Sturgis & Kuha – LSE, Public Health (2022)
A user interacts with a digital chart projected from a tablet, reflecting how both the production and interpretation of data shape policy responses in gambling regulation.
EXPLORE ARTICLE SERIES
European gambling regulation in focus
Article 3 of 4 in a series exploring ”European gambling regualtion in focus”: Measuring Gambling Harm in Europe
“Eurpoean gambling regulation in focus” is a focused series examining how evolving gambling policies are reshaping legal markets, player behaviour, and black-market dynamics. Drawing on data from the UK, the Netherlands, and across the EU market, it highlights the real-world impact of regulatory ambition on channelisation and market stability.
Article series
REGULATION
European Gambling Regulation in Focus: A four part series
