Does regulated gambling equal more gamblers, and thus more harm?

It is an argument that has been used by the staunch opponents of the gambling industry for years: if you regulate gambling, more people will be enticed to gamble and this will harm the society as a whole.

But does this argument really stand true in anno domini, 2025?

No.

Thank you for coming to my TEDtalk.

While on the very surface level, the argument of this logic checks out as in theory, allowing gambling to be out in the open could expose it to individuals who wouldn’t normally be exposed to it, the Jenga tower starts to sway pretty rapidly when one proceeds to remove no more than a few blocks.

To elaborate on why this is the case, let’s take a look at the circumstances and the deep history that surrounds this argument and why the answer is not as clear-cut as it first seems.

The history of gambling can be traced back as far as to the region of Mesopotamia thousands of years ago, where the earliest dice were discovered, and humankind has hardly looked back since. From the gambling houses of China in the 1st millennium BCE to the countless crypto casinos that litter the World Wide Web nowadays, it’s safe to say that, whether we like it or not, gambling is deeply ingrained in our society and a very popular pastime.

As solid as the foundation gambling has gained in our midst is also the undeniable fact that there is a possibility that engaging in this activity can cause severe harm to individuals, whether on a financial, psychological, or any other level. This is why it is important that when it comes to individuals who are not able to protect themselves for one reason or another, someone must do it for them.

That someone can be one of two parties: the operator themselves or the prevailing licensing authority, whether it is an entity which covers a wide geographical area, such as MGA of Malta or GCB of Curacao, or a national licensing regime which operates under the watchful eye of the national government, like UKGC in the United Kingdom or KSA in the Netherlands.

Many operators turn to the so-called "dot com" licensing regimes for their first license, unless they wish to focus solely on a single target market. The reason for this is often the cost of the license, speed of obtaining the license, and let’s be honest, the perceived legitimacy of having a license, irrespective of how strict that license actually is when it comes to matters such as player protection. It allows a wider customer base right off the bat, allowing greater flexibility and growth. But not all licenses are created equal.

On the contrary, the local licensing regimes tend to be far more strict, especially when it comes to player protection regulations, often imposing strict limits on matters such as marketing, technical standards, and player spending. This is primarily due to the genuine desire to protect your citizens from gambling-related harm to the best of your ability, but we cannot understate the political pressure that the opposing political ideologies put on the ruling party, which decided to regulate the market.

As with all things, there is always a sweet spot where both aspects, in this case, keeping the market viable and interesting for both players as well as operators, and protecting vulnerable individuals, meet in beautiful harmony. Too much of a good thing can ruin the whole dish, and if the pendulum swings too hard in one direction, one doesn't only see diminishing returns but the opposite of what they are trying to achieve. This pushes players from a highly limited, overbearing environment to the free-for-all of the black market, where the tradeoff of freedom is very little, if any, protection. This is something the Dutch discovered recently, much to their shock, despite warnings from industry experts.

In today’s hyper-connected age, where all the information in the world is available in our pockets, individuals who wish to gamble have more choices than ever. Not to mention that it is more accessible and casinos are easier to find than ever.

Even if regulating your local market and opening it to operators could potentially bring new audiences to it, gambling is unavoidable in today’s world, and it would be frankly irresponsible to leave everything in the hands of the operators, many of whom don’t have to follow many or any regulations. It is estimated that in Europe alone, the channelization (players gambling on licensed casinos) is only 29%.

Regulations are absolutely crucial in creating a healthy gambling market where operators must fulfil their social responsibility and protect all players, but this has to be done in a way that does not choke itself and push players to the Wild West that is at their fingertips.

Much like gamblingresponsibly isn’tharmful, regulating a market doesn’t harm the market. Where the UK was previously reporting stabilization in statistics on problem gambling, which was expected to increase, one wonders what will happen now that we are increasing the remote gaming duty by almost 100%.

The biggest harm can be achieved with either of the two extremes: overregulation or no regulation at all.

Image credit: Casino Guru News