Dutch Channelisation Gap Shows Illegal Market Capturing High-Value Players
TL;DR — Luc Goossens states the Dutch gambling market’s health is decided at its illegal edge. The KSA’s spring 2026 report shows 91% player channelisation but only 53% of gross gaming revenue in the legal market since the 2021 Remote Gambling Act. Illegal operators professionalize by offering unrestricted bonuses, deposits and no CRUKS checks.
Luc Goossens, editor and analyst at oplichting.com, argues that the health of the Dutch gambling market is decided at its illegal edge. Since the regulated online gambling market opened in October 2021, Dutch policy has centered on channelisation. As first reported by Focus Gaming News, Goossens and his team track the legal-illegal divide daily and conclude that players migrating to unlicensed casinos reveal the most about regulatory effectiveness.
The latest Kansspelautoriteit spring 2026 monitoring report puts player channelisation at approximately 91 per cent. Measured by gross gaming revenue, however, the legal market captures just 53 per cent. Goossens notes this disparity means a relatively small group of players generates a large share of total losses offshore. The signal matters because high-loss players can disappear from regulatory view while the player percentage still looks strong.
Revenue Channelisation as the Decisive Metric
Since October 2024, stricter rules on deposit limits and financial capacity have applied and have reduced very high losses at licensed operators. At the same time the KSA has warned that heavy players may have moved offshore. Search volumes for major illegal sites have risen. Goossens cautions that rules offering maximum protection on paper can still fail if they create enough friction to drive vulnerable players outside the supervised system.
Where Protections Must Balance Friction and Effectiveness
Player protection must remain robust but also understandable and workable. Every new restriction deserves a channelisation test: do affected players stop gambling, adjust their behavior or simply seek operators with no supervision? Blocking illegal websites buys time yet mirror sites appear quickly. Education helps players recognize unlicensed operators, while licensed operators must demonstrate why regulated play is preferable through clear terms, reachable Dutch-language support and targeted interventions that feel protective rather than bureaucratic.
Goossens expects future debate to focus less on whether stricter rules are needed and more on which rules actually work. The number of regulations says little by itself. What matters is how many players stay within the licensed framework of their own accord, even at moments when doing so is not easy.
Reporting: Focus Gaming News
Stricter Dutch rules protected vulnerable players on paper but pushed the highest-value accounts straight to unlicensed operators.
We've watched this pattern across every regulated market SCCG enters: protection that creates too much friction doesn't eliminate risk, it exports it. The Netherlands now faces a two-tier reality where most players comply but revenue concentrates outside supervision. Operators and regulators need to redesign friction points before channelisation collapses entirely and the tax base follows the whales offshore.
- 91% player channelisation but only 53% GGR captured since 2021 opening
- October 2024 deposit-limit rules correlated with rising illegal-site search volume
- High-loss players migrating offshore, invisible to CRUKS and KSA monitoring
SCCG angle: SCCG has guided clients through every major European launch since Spain 2012. When deposit caps or self-exclusion registries risk pushing premium players offshore, we connect operators to retention architects, payment providers with compliant high-limit rails, and CRM teams who've solved friction at the KYC and affordability layer without losing the account. We also advise regulators directly on channelisation measurement and rule calibration before revenue leaks become structural.