ATG CEO challenges BOS over Swedish gambling tax policy

The debate over gambling taxation in Sweden has intensified following renewed calls by AB Trav och Galopp (ATG) for differentiated tax rates across gambling products. ATG’s chief executive has firmly rejected criticism from the trade association BOS and a group of licensed operators who argue that such a move could undermine the regulated gambling market. At the centre of the dispute is the question of whether online casino gaming and horse race betting should continue to be taxed at the same level despite their differing economic and social roles.

The discussion has acquired political significance as it touches on the core objectives of Sweden’s Gambling Act including consumer protection market channelisation and the long term sustainability of sectors that rely on gambling revenues. ATG maintains that the current uniform tax structure no longer reflects market realities while BOS argues that any increase in the tax burden on online casino operators risks driving players towards unlicensed alternatives.

Background to Sweden’s gambling tax framework

Sweden re regulated its gambling market in 2019 with the introduction of a licensing system designed to bring operators into a controlled legal environment. One of the main policy goals of the reform was to achieve a high level of channelisation meaning that consumers would choose licensed operators over offshore unregulated platforms.

Initially the gambling tax was set at 18 per cent of gross gaming revenue. This rate applied uniformly across most licensed gambling activities including online casino sports betting and horse race betting. In July 2024 the tax rate was increased to 22 per cent a move that was justified by the government as necessary to secure public revenues while maintaining regulatory oversight.

ATG has since argued that this increase has had a disproportionate impact on horse race betting which supports a wider ecosystem beyond the gambling sector itself. According to the company horse racing revenues are directly linked to funding for the national horse industry including breeding training race tracks and regional employment.

BOS opposition and industry concerns

Last week BOS formally expressed its opposition to ATG’s proposal through a letter sent to the Swedish government. The letter was signed by senior executives from several major operators including Betsson Group chief executive Pontus Lindwall and Entain chief executive Stella David. BOS warned that lowering the tax rate on horse betting while increasing it for online casino gaming could weaken the competitiveness of licensed online operators.

The association argued that online casino products are particularly sensitive to tax increases because they operate in a highly competitive international environment. BOS reiterated that Sweden’s policy objective of reaching a 90 per cent channelisation rate remains fragile and could be undermined if licensed operators face higher costs than their unlicensed counterparts.

From BOS’s perspective maintaining a uniform tax rate is essential to avoid distorting consumer behaviour and creating incentives for players to seek out unregulated sites that do not comply with Swedish consumer protection standards.

ATG CEO challenges assumptions behind channelisation argument

In response ATG chief executive Hans Lord Skarplöth published an editorial in the Swedish business newspaper Dagens Industri in which he directly challenged BOS’s reasoning. He argued that the association’s position relies on assumptions that no longer align with available data or policy realities.

“BOS believes that the channelisation rate should weigh more heavily than all other considerations and thus exclude differentiated tax rates.

“But the Gaming Act is designed to weigh several goals against each other. In addition available data shows that the channelisation for online casinos has improved since the gaming tax was increased; this does not mean that the tax alone can explain the development – but it does mean that the claim that higher taxes automatically worsen channelisation is no longer valid.”

Skarplöth’s comments suggest that while tax levels are one factor influencing channelisation they are not the sole determinant. He pointed to improvements in enforcement regulatory oversight and consumer awareness as contributing to a more resilient legal market.

Distinction between online casino and horse betting

A central element of ATG’s argument is the assertion that not all gambling products should be treated as economically equivalent. Skarplöth stressed that online casino gaming and horse betting differ fundamentally in their structure and societal impact.

He wrote: “The biggest flaw in BOS's reasoning however is not statistical but political. Not all forms of gambling are equal. Online casinos are a decoupled digital product. Horse betting is not.”

According to ATG horse betting is embedded in a broader national industry that extends far beyond gambling activity. Revenues from betting are used to fund racing events maintain infrastructure and support thousands of jobs across Sweden.

“It is closely intertwined with a national horse industry that encompasses around 350,000 horses and provides employment for nearly 40,000 people. Thirty-three towns have trotting and galloping tracks as an important workplace and gathering point. Without the horse industry not only a game disappears but also jobs and regional structures.”

These remarks frame horse betting as a form of gambling with cultural economic and regional significance. ATG argues that taxing it at the same level as online casino gaming ignores these wider contributions.

Political feasibility and pragmatic policy choices

Skarplöth acknowledged that ATG’s preferred outcome would be a lower gambling tax across all products. However he described such a reform as politically unrealistic given current fiscal pressures and policy priorities.

“In an ideal scenario a lower gambling tax would have included all forms of gambling. However such a reform appears politically unrealistic. Against this background the proposal for differentiation should be seen as a pragmatic way of dealing with conflicting objectives within the framework of current gambling policy.”

This statement positions differentiated taxation not as a special favour for ATG but as a compromise designed to balance competing interests. From ATG’s perspective it is a way to preserve funding for the horse industry without dismantling the broader regulatory framework.

Role of enforcement and regulatory reform

Another element of ATG’s response concerns recent changes to Sweden’s Gambling Act that strengthen the powers of the gambling regulator Spelinspektionen. The revised legislation gives the regulator wider scope to take enforcement action against unlicensed operators including payment blocking and enhanced supervisory measures.

Skarplöth argued that these reforms further weaken the claim that higher gambling taxes inevitably drive players towards the black market. Stronger enforcement combined with clearer consumer protections reduces the attractiveness of unlicensed sites even if tax levels increase.

By highlighting regulatory improvements ATG seeks to shift the debate away from a narrow focus on taxation and towards a more holistic view of market regulation.

Consumer protection versus industry sustainability

The dispute between ATG and BOS reflects a broader tension within gambling policy between consumer protection and industry sustainability. Online casino operators emphasise the importance of maintaining competitive conditions to keep players within the regulated market. ATG emphasises the need to safeguard a traditional industry that depends on gambling revenues for its survival.

Skarplöth concluded his editorial with a pointed assessment of current policy trade offs. “Consumer protection is strengthened over time the horse industry is weakened. The channelling argument against differentiated gambling tax was relevant in the past. Today it is not enough.”

This conclusion suggests that policy makers must consider whether existing tax structures inadvertently undermine sectors that provide social and economic value beyond gambling itself.

Implications for future gambling policy

The Swedish government now faces the challenge of reconciling these competing perspectives. Any move towards differentiated taxation would represent a significant shift in policy and could set a precedent for treating gambling products according to their broader societal impact.

At the same time regulators must ensure that changes do not compromise channelisation goals or consumer protection standards. The debate highlights the complexity of gambling regulation in a market where digital products coexist with traditional industries.

While no immediate policy decision has been announced the exchange between ATG and BOS underscores the likelihood of continued scrutiny of Sweden’s gambling tax regime. It also illustrates how data regulatory developments and political considerations interact in shaping gambling policy.

Conclusion

The exchange between ATG and BOS illustrates the growing complexity of gambling regulation in a mature and highly regulated market such as Sweden. What initially appears to be a technical dispute over tax percentages has evolved into a broader policy discussion about how different forms of gambling should be assessed within the same legal framework. The arguments presented by ATG’s leadership challenge the assumption that uniform taxation automatically delivers better regulatory outcomes and instead invite policymakers to consider the wider economic and structural consequences of their decisions.

At the core of ATG’s position is the assertion that horse race betting cannot be viewed in isolation from the national horse industry it sustains. This industry extends into employment regional development and cultural life in many parts of Sweden. From this perspective taxation is not merely a fiscal instrument but a mechanism that can either stabilise or erode an interconnected ecosystem. ATG’s call for differentiation is framed as a pragmatic response to political constraints rather than a rejection of the broader objectives of the Gambling Act.

Conversely the concerns raised by BOS underscore the continued importance of protecting the regulated market from erosion by unlicensed operators. Channelisation remains a central pillar of Swedish gambling policy and any reform must demonstrate that it does not weaken consumer protection or regulatory oversight. The tension between these objectives highlights the need for evidence based policymaking that reflects current market behaviour rather than assumptions rooted in earlier phases of regulation.

Ultimately the debate signals a moment of reassessment for Swedish gambling policy. As enforcement tools become stronger and consumer protections more robust the space may open for a more nuanced approach to taxation that recognises the distinct characteristics of different gambling products. Whether lawmakers choose to pursue such differentiation will depend on their willingness to balance fiscal priorities with long term industry sustainability. What is clear is that the discussion has moved beyond simple tax alignment and into a deeper examination of how regulation can adapt to evolving economic and social realities while maintaining legal certainty and public trust.

FAQs

What is the main dispute between ATG and BOS?
The dispute centres on whether Sweden should apply different tax rates to horse betting and online casino gaming instead of a uniform gambling tax.

Why does ATG support differentiated tax rates?
ATG argues that horse betting supports a wider national horse industry including jobs and regional infrastructure which justifies a lower tax rate.

What is BOS concerned about?
BOS fears that increasing taxes on online casino gaming could push players towards unlicensed operators and weaken market channelisation.

What is channelisation in gambling policy?
Channelisation refers to the proportion of gambling activity that takes place with licensed regulated operators rather than unlicensed ones.

Has Sweden recently changed its gambling tax?
Yes the gambling tax increased from 18 per cent to 22 per cent in July 2024.

What evidence does ATG cite to support its position?
ATG points to data showing improved online casino channelisation despite higher taxes and stronger regulatory enforcement.

How does horse betting differ from online casino gaming?
Horse betting is linked to a physical national industry with race tracks employment and regional economic impact while online casino gaming is a digital product.

What role does Spelinspektionen play?
Spelinspektionen is Sweden’s gambling regulator and has received expanded powers to act against unlicensed operators.

Is ATG calling for lower taxes across all gambling products?
ATG has stated that this would be ideal but considers it politically unrealistic at present.

What could be the outcome of this debate?
The debate may influence future decisions on whether Sweden adopts a more differentiated approach to gambling taxation.