Sweden: the gambling tax that is dividing the country
•
31 Dec 2025 •
Reading time: 3 minutes In Sweden, gambling taxation has become one of the most heated public debates in the regulatory landscape. A proposal to introduce differentiated tax rates depending on the type of game has reignited a standoff between the government, licensed operators and consumer protection advocates.
The starting point: uniform taxation called into question
Since the reopening of the regulated market in 2019, Sweden has applied a uniform tax of 22% on gross gaming revenue (GGR) for all licensed operators, whether sports betting, horse racing or online casinos. This rule, designed to ensure simplicity and stability, is now being called into question.
However, some players – most notably the state-owned horse racing operator ATG – believe that not all segments are equal and that taxation should better reflect market realities. According to them, differentiated taxation would recognise that certain games have higher channelling rates and generate less competitive pressure from unlicensed operators.
Differentiated taxation: a solution or a risk?
The idea of differentiating tax rates is not new, but it is now gaining unprecedented momentum in Sweden. The aim is to reduce the tax burden on segments considered healthy, such as horse betting, while increasing it on segments most exposed to international competition, such as online casinos. The proposal is inspired by recent tax adjustments in the United Kingdom.
Specifically, ATG proposes to reduce the tax on horse betting to 18% while increasing the tax on online casinos to 26%. For its supporters, this approach would be fairer and would support players that are strongly integrated into the national economy, such as the equestrian sector.
But not everyone shares this view. On 15 December 2025, a joint letter signed by thirteen leaders of major Swedish operators was sent to the Ministry of Finance. Among them are well-known names in the sector, such as the heads of Betsson, Entain and LeoVegas. These leaders are calling on the government to firmly reject the introduction of differentiated taxation.
Their argument is that such a reform would threaten the channelling of players towards the regulated market, a fundamental element of Swedish policy aimed at limiting the risks associated with online gambling. Operators point out that channelling rates already vary greatly between segments: almost 99% for horse betting, but only around 80% for online casinos. In their view, further increasing taxation on the latter could therefore exacerbate the lack of channelling rather than correcting it.
Beyond the issue of competitiveness alone, opponents of the reform are concerned about the impact on player protection and the ability of operators to finance prevention and compliance measures. They argue that increased tax pressure on certain segments would reduce margins, which could lead to a decrease in investment in responsible gaming tools or in the fight against addiction.
A broader debate on the purpose of taxation
Proponents of a differentiated tax believe that appropriate tax treatment can encourage certain healthier practices or support activities that are integrated into the local economic fabric. Conversely, its detractors fear that this is a manoeuvre which, under the guise of efficiency, will ultimately fragment the regulated market.
Another dimension of the debate even transcends national borders: some experts point to the risk that overly specific rules could conflict with European standards on state aid. For example, granting a tax advantage to a dominant company in a given segment could be interpreted as illegal aid under European Union law.
What next for Sweden?
At this stage, the Swedish government has not yet made a final decision. The already intense controversy illustrates the complexity of reconciling economic objectives, consumer protection and regulatory stability in a rapidly evolving gaming market.
The next steps will largely depend on the political decisions made in Stockholm, but also on pressure from market players and European institutions.