Canada’s provincial gambling model is likely to face a major stress test during the 2026 FIFA World Cup, according to new research published by CasinoCanada.com. The analysis argues the tournament will highlight uneven betting access and channelisation across provinces as Canada co-hosts the event.

The research draws on provincial regulatory reporting, iGaming Ontario’s annual figures and data from Blask’s 2025 iGaming Landscape Report. It says Ontario’s open market—described as having nearly 50 licensed operators—has reached an 83.7% channelisation rate, meaning most online bettors are using regulated platforms.

Outside Ontario, CasinoCanada.com estimates significantly higher offshore leakage, including 93% in Saskatchewan, 88% in Alberta and Manitoba, and about 49% retention in British Columbia despite the long-running PlayNow provincial platform. The report frames those gaps as a competitiveness issue for regulated offerings.

CasinoCanada.com also highlights timing risk in Alberta’s transition to a competitive market. The Alberta Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis (AGLC) registration deadline for operators is 13 July 2026—after the World Cup reaches the quarter-final stage—raising the likelihood that peak tournament betting volume continues to flow through unregulated operators, the report says.

Eugene Ravdin, Head of PR for CasinoCanada, said: “The 2026 World Cup is not just a commercial opportunity for the Canadian market – it’s a live stress test for how the country regulates gambling. Ontario has built something that works, and the numbers show it. However, for most Canadians outside that market, the tournament is going to arrive at a system that was never designed for this level of demand.

“The offshore leakage figures are not abstract. They represent real bettors choosing unregulated platforms because the regulated alternative isn’t competitive enough. The World Cup will make that gap very visible, very quickly.”

The post Analysis flags World Cup 2026 stress test for Canada’s patchwork betting rules appeared first on Eastern European Gaming | Global iGaming & Tech Intelligence Hub.

Editor’s Take

Why this matters: The unity of the Swedish regulated market is fracturing. While the industry usually stands together against black market threats, ATG (the former state monopolist) has broken ranks by advocating for higher taxes on its competitors (casinos) while seeking a tax cut for its own core product (horse betting). BOS’s response is significant because it elevates the argument from “bad policy” to “illegal act.” By invoking EU State Aid rules, BOS is signaling that any government attempt to favor ATG will face immediate litigation in Brussels.

The Full Story

The conflict between Sweden’s commercial operators and the former horse racing monopoly ATG has escalated into a debate over European Union law.

Following a controversial op-ed by ATG CEO Hasse Lord Skarplöth in Dagens Industri (DI) on December 19, the Swedish Trade Association for Online Gambling (BOS) has issued a sharp rebuttal. BOS Secretary General Gustaf Hoffstedt argues that ATG’s proposal—to raise the general gambling tax to 26% while lowering the tax on horse betting to 18%—would likely be deemed illegal under EU state aid rules.

The ATG Proposal In his initial column, Skarplöth argued that the Swedish government should abandon a flat tax rate. He proposed increasing the tax burden on online casinos and sports betting to 26%, while simultaneously requesting a tax reduction for horse betting products to 18%. ATG argues this differentiation better reflects reality and protects the funding of the Swedish equine industry.

BOS: “A Legal Dispute with the EU” In a response published in Dagens Industri on December 22, Gustaf Hoffstedt rejected the proposal on two fronts: commercial viability and legal compliance.

While BOS has long argued that raising taxes will destroy channelisation rates (driving players to the unlicensed market), Hoffstedt’s newest argument focuses on competition law. He asserts that because ATG holds a de facto monopoly on horse betting, a tax break specifically for that vertical is a direct subsidy to a single company.

“In addition to weakening the competitiveness of the legal licensing system… a system with a differentiated gambling tax would place Sweden in a legal dispute with the EU. We should avoid that,” said Hoffstedt.

The Monopoly Argument Hoffstedt points out that while the Swedish Gambling Act technically allows other operators to apply for horse betting licenses, the reality is different. ATG retains exclusive access to pool data and direct connections to trotting and galloping tracks. Furthermore, ATG had 45 years of monopoly protection to build liquidity in its pools, creating a network effect that competitors cannot realistically challenge.

Therefore, BOS argues, a tax cut for “horse betting” is, in practice, a tax cut exclusively for ATG.

“If a benefit can in practice only be used by a single company, it is selective in the sense of state aid law,” Hoffstedt explained. “Against this background, a differentiated gambling tax for horse racing would mean that the state, through the tax system, provides an economic advantage that can in reality only accrue to a single company.”

Debunking the UK Comparison Skarplöth previously cited the United Kingdom as an example of a jurisdiction with successful differential taxation. Hoffstedt dismissed this comparison as “misleading.” In the UK, the market for horse betting is competitive, with multiple operators offering bets on equal terms. In Sweden, the structural advantages held by ATG make such competition impossible.

The Ultimatum: Open the Pools or Keep Taxes Flat BOS concluded with a challenge to ATG and the government. If ATG wants a unique tax bracket, it must surrender its unique market position.

“The uncomfortable but necessary conclusion for ATG is therefore clear. You cannot both maintain the current special status for horse racing and at the same time introduce a differentiated gambling tax,” Hoffstedt wrote.

He outlined that for a differential tax to be legal, ATG would need to open its betting pools to other companies at neutral compensation levels. If ATG wishes to keep its pools closed, “taxation must continue to be the same for all gambling products.”

The post BOS Rejects ATG Call for Differential Tax: “It Constitutes Illegal State Aid” appeared first on Gaming and Gambling Industry Newsroom.