For several years now, the fight against illegal online gambling has been gaining momentum on the agenda of European regulators. In the Netherlands, the idea of a kind of ‘Gambling Interpol’ has recently been put forward. However, expert Rik Wanrooij believes that this approach risks obscuring the essential issue.
The call for a ‘Gambling Interpol’
At an international conference, the chairman of the Kansspelautoriteit revived the idea of more effective cross-border coordination against unauthorised platforms. The aim is to enable faster information exchange between authorities and concerted action to dismantle illegal networks operating without a licence across national borders. This initiative has been dubbed ‘Gambling Interpol’ by some media outlets and industry players, in reference to the international police organisation.
For many observers, this solution could facilitate the detection of illegal domains, improve the blocking of illicit financial flows and enable countries to pool their resources. But while the idea has strong symbolic resonance, some experts, such as Rik Wanrooij, owner of Holland Power Gaming and Goldrun Casino, warn that it may be ineffective if it is not accompanied by a fundamental overhaul of the way legal gambling is structured.
‘Law enforcement is absolutely necessary. It is also right that illegal affiliates and influencers who advertise illegal gambling sites are being tackled more firmly. But enforcement can never be the only pillar of the system. In this case, we are mainly continuing to repair the back end, while the attraction at the front end remains.’
A legal market struggling to retain its players
For Rik Wanrooij, the idea of an ‘Interpol for gambling’ sounds logical and determined, but it misses the main issue. In his view, the relentless growth of the illegal market cannot be explained solely by difficulties in enforcing the law, but above all by the fact that players are turning to platforms that offer them fewer constraints.
‘The illegal market is growing not only because enforcement is complex, but also because the legal offering for regular players is increasingly perceived as cumbersome and less attractive,’ Wanrooij wrote in a recent opinion piece.
In practice, licensed operators must comply with strict requirements — multiple verifications, deposit limits, prohibitions, mandatory contacts, and various administrative hurdles before players can gamble. For consumers, this can quickly translate into a series of tedious steps. In contrast, illegal sites generally do not impose these barriers. Access to gambling is faster and simpler.
Frictions and economic realities of the legal market
One of the most salient points raised by Wanrooij is the impact of taxation on the competitiveness of legal platforms. With gaming taxation rising sharply, it is becoming increasingly difficult for legal licence holders to maintain competitive offerings. The result, he says, is pressure on innovation, reduced margins and, in some cases, lower return to player (RTP) rates.
‘Those who make the legal offering too unattractive are inadvertently increasing the space for illegal providers,’ he warns.
The flight to illegality: psychological and economic mechanisms
Consumers naturally choose the path of least resistance. This principle, well known to behavioural specialists, also applies to gamblers. When an illegal site offers instant access without lengthy checks, strict limits or additional constraints, it becomes a more attractive option in the eyes of the average gambler — even if it is risky. It is not that gamblers intend to break the law; often, they are simply looking for a smooth experience. But the regulatory system, which is sometimes too rigid, ends up pushing them towards these unauthorised platforms.
This dynamic creates a paradox: the more strictly regulated the legal offering is, the more it can lose its relevance in the face of illegal operators who do not have such obligations.
For Wanrooij, the fight against illegal operators cannot rely exclusively on repressive measures and initiatives such as Interpol for gambling. While international cooperation can strengthen surveillance and intervention capabilities, it will not solve the structural reasons that drive players towards illegality.
‘The rules must remain clear and enforceable. The limits must be realistic. And the legal offering must remain attractive enough to keep players within the legal framework.’