Data · Blog
Male vs Female Gambling Statistics
The gap is real, it is small, and it is almost entirely online.
Tested & written by CalderCashout · CryptoCasino.ReportTap for more +Tap to close ×
CalderCashout · the reviewer on a team of three, pseudonymous on purpose. The money is public. Our names aren't.
I run every page here the same way: deposit first, write second. I send my own crypto, play, request the withdrawal, log the timestamps and the transaction hashes, and only then write. Nothing here is a rewrite of a casino's press kit or somebody else's list.
My ledgernet −4.78 USDT · 0.00061719 BTC in play
Lost $0.08 on 3 small bets at Roobet
Including the Dice roll I checked · $0.07 leftWithdrew $43.70 from Roobet
43.755218 USDT in my wallet 2 min 23 s later · gas paid by Roobettx 0x8626d5a1…8539e ↗Lost $6.04 at Roobet clearing the wagering requirement
Dice, Hilo and Blackjack at 1 and 10 cents a bet
In Great Britain 51% of men and 44% of women gambled in the past four weeks. Strip out people who only buy lottery tickets and go to a betting shop or an arcade, and the figures are 18% and 17%. Move the same comparison online and they are 20% and 12%. On the high street British men and women now gamble at the same rate. Every point of the headline gap sits in digital products.
Short answer: men gamble more, but by less than most articles claim, and the difference is a channel difference rather than a sex difference. Harm runs about two to one male. Treatment runs nearly four to one, which is a different fact.
Every number here is graded
Most published gender gambling statistics fail in one specific way. A real number loses its denominator in transmission, and “5.3% of past-year gamblers” becomes “5% of men”. So every figure below says what it counts and who published it.
| Grade | What it means |
|---|---|
| Regulator | Official national statistics. The UK Gambling Commission, Spelinspektionen, Spain’s DGOJ, Australia’s AIHW. |
| Account data | Counted from real operator accounts rather than asked in a survey. Three instances exist worldwide. |
| Clinical | Treatment and helpline records. Measures service use, never prevalence. |
| Peer-reviewed | Published academic study with a stated method. |
| Panel | A survey on a non-probability online panel. Real research, weaker sampling. |
| Unsourced | Widely repeated, traces to affiliate content or to nothing. Listed so you can stop repeating it. |
Part one. Where and how they gamble
The gap is a channel, not a sex
This is the finding that reorganizes the topic, and it comes from the largest gambling survey in the world. The Gambling Commission’s 2025 participation report covers fieldwork through 2025 and reports both figures below. It publishes percentages and confidence intervals rather than its achieved sample, which sits in the separate data tables.
Any gambling 1.16 : 1
Excluding lottery-only players 1.25 : 1
In person, excluding lottery 1.06 : 1
Online, excluding lottery 1.67 : 1
Regulator. The ratio barely moves until you reach the online row, where it jumps to 1.67 to 1.
Lottery is what compresses the headline. It is the one product women play at least as much as men, and because almost everyone buys a ticket at some point it drags both sexes toward the same number. Remove it and the structure appears.
Australia finds the same thing independently. Venue gambling there runs slightly higher for women, 27.0% against 26.2%, while online runs 37.5% against 28.4%. Australia’s full set runs 63.7% against 55.4% for any gambling, 37.5% against 28.4% online, and 26.2% against 27.0% in venues. Two national datasets, two instruments, the same conclusion: land-based gambling has reached sex parity and digital has not.
The direction matters. The standard claim is that online access brought women into gambling. Within a single product the evidence says the opposite. Bingo is the test case, because it exists in both channels and is the one non-lottery product with a female majority. In person it is 67.3% female. Online it is 56.7%. Moving a product onto the internet moves its player base toward men.
Bingo measured: WhichBingo 2025 on over 1,200 UK adults, corroborated independently by YouGov at 60% women among online bingo and keno players.
Channel is not the same as place
Every figure above describes which channel somebody used. Only one survey in this entire evidence base asks where they actually were. WhichBingo put the question to over 1,200 UK adults, 62.9% of them women.
Panel survey, fieldwork February to March 2025. A bingo-playing sample rather than a general population, so read it as a portrait of a female-majority product.
Four in ten play while watching television, four in ten from bed, a third in the pub. For understanding how online gambling actually fits into a day, that is worth more than another channel percentage. It also explains why convenience outranks odds for women in the choice data below: a product played from bed while half-watching something else is chosen on ease, not on payout percentage.
What men and women actually play
Britain’s regulator publishes no activity-level breakdown by sex in its reports, only a “top three activities” list. The cleanest matrix anywhere comes from Sweden, on a sample fourteen times smaller.
Lotteries
Betting
Bingo
Casino
Poker
Slot machines
Regulator, November 2025, unweighted. Per-product cells for women run roughly 45 to 66 respondents, so read individual products as indicative.
The shape is the point. This is not a uniform male skew across gambling. It is a betting gap. Sports betting runs 2.2 to 1 male in Sweden, and Britain’s most recent wave of 5,210 adults to January 2026 puts any betting at 13% of men against 4% of women. Casino and poker differ by only a few points. Bingo inverts. Lottery inverts.
One more product finding cuts against the folklore harder than any of the above. Online bingo and keno players, a group that is 60% women against 38% of UK gamblers generally, played online casino slots for real money at 44% against 15% of gamblers overall, and online casino table games at 26% against 9%. They are less likely to bet with a sports bookmaker, 38% against 46%, and more likely to stake over a hundred pounds a month, 26% against 16%. A female-majority player base plays slots at nearly three times the general rate.
That also disposes of the folk claim that women prefer chance and men prefer skill. The academic version of it is narrower and defensible: men are over-represented in products with a form-study component and in competitive formats. The popular version collapses on its own taxonomy, because slots are pure chance and skew male.
Inside betting, the split is about the event
“Men bet on sport” is too coarse. Ask people who bet what they have actually bet on and the sexes separate by event rather than by betting itself.
Football
Horse racing
Ice hockey
Esports
Tennis
Basketball
Entertainment, e.g. song contests
Politics
Regulator, past-year bettors. Horse racing is at parity. Football and ice hockey are not. Entertainment betting is the one category where women lead, by almost three to one.
Horse racing at 45% against 43% is the quiet finding here. It is a betting product with no sex gap at all, which means the gap in betting overall is carried by football and ice hockey rather than by betting as an activity. Entertainment betting, on song contests and similar, runs 14% of women against 5% of men.
Where they place those bets differs too. Among Swedes who know which operators hold a national license, 39% of women do not gamble online at all, against 18% of men, and among those who do, 72% of men and 54% of women say they use licensed sites exclusively, with a further 9% of men and 7% of women using both licensed and unlicensed sites. In Canada the same channel split appears from a different survey: 27.4% of men gambled online against 13.0% of women, while lottery-only play reverses it at 31.3% of women against 25.8% of men.
Part two. How often, and how much
Same reasons, different rhythm
Ask men and women why they gamble and the answers are almost identical. Sweden’s regulator puts fun and entertainment at 65% of men and 63% of women, and winning big at 43% and 42%. Only two reasons separate them at all: gambling as a hobby, 8% of men against 3% of women, and gambling to win money for everyday use, 15% against 18%. The motive is not where the sexes differ. The rhythm is.
For fun or entertainment
To win big
To win money for everyday use
For the social side
It is a hobby
For a good cause
Regulator, 574 men and 513 women who gambled in the past year. Six reasons, and only two of them separate the sexes at all.
The rhythm is a different matter.
Almost every day
Once or twice a week
About once a month
About once a quarter
About twice a year
About once a year
Less often
Regulator, 574 men and 513 women who gambled in the past year. The lines cross at about once a month. Above that line the players are mostly men, below it mostly women.
That single chart explains most of what the rest of this page measures. Men are more than twice as likely to play at least weekly, 45% against 25%. Women are more than half again as likely to play a few times a year or less, 46% against 29%. Same stated reasons, a different relationship with the activity.
It also shows up in the plumbing. Nearly half of Swedish women who gambled in the past year hold no online gambling account at all.
No online account
One account
Two accounts
Three or more
Men are twice as likely to hold two or more accounts, which is the behavior that makes account totals a poor proxy for player numbers, and which shops around for odds and offers.
The pattern runs all the way back to whether somebody ever starts. Fifteen percent of Swedish women have never gambled at all, against 8% of men, while the share who last gambled more than a year ago is identical at 14%. Women are less likely to begin, not more likely to stop.
Among those who did stop, the stated reasons differ in a way that fits everything above. Never winning anything is given by 56% of women against 39% of men. Getting tired of gambling runs the other way, 29% of men against 21% of women. And too much advertising is cited by 12% of men against 5% of women, on a base of 102 men and 107 women, so treat it as indicative.
More sessions, smaller stakes
The one dataset that watched real accounts rather than asking people describes the two patterns directly. In 139,152 British online accounts, male bettors wagered much more frequently than female bettors and at somewhat higher stakes. Among people playing casino games, slots and bingo, the pattern reversed: women took part in more and longer sessions while staking at lower levels, and across all gaming products together the median woman spent half as much again over the year as the median man.
Two details in that report are easy to miss and worth keeping. Women’s share of slots and bingo rises further if you count only regular players, meaning those playing weekly or more, so the committed core of both products is more female than the headline participation figures suggest. And for every gaming activity the sex mix online was close to the sex mix for the same activity in land-based venues. Products carry their own demographics with them when they move to the internet.
Exposure starts before any of it. Among 11 to 17 year olds, 57% of boys recall gambling adverts at sports events against 37% of girls, and 53% against 31% on live streaming or video sharing platforms. Seventy-nine percent of 11 to 17 year olds recall gambling advertising from somewhere, split almost evenly between offline sources at 77% and online at 74%.
On the money, almost nothing is published
The pattern across official statistics is exact: bodies publish money without sex, or sex without money, never both. Britain’s regulator breaks participation down by sex in detail and its population survey contains no measure of spending at all. Australia states plainly that its expenditure data is broken down by product, state and per capita, but not by gender.
One substantive source exists and it is seven years old. Patterns of Play analyzed 139,152 real accounts across seven British operators for the year to June 2019.
| Figure | What it is |
|---|---|
| Over 94% | Of industry betting revenue came from accounts belonging to men |
| 83.5% | Of accounts losing more than £2,000 in the year were men’s |
| About 1.5× | What the median female gaming player spent against the median male, over more and longer sessions at lower stakes |
| Under 25% | Of casino and poker customers were women. About a third of slots customers. 62% of online bingo. |
Those findings have to run together. The report also says the probability of a male customer being a heavy loser was only a little higher than for a female customer, which means the 83.5% is driven mainly by men being most of the accounts rather than by a large per-account difference in risk. Quote the 94% alone and you have misled; quote the 1.5× alone and you have misled in the other direction.
Part three. What pulls them in
What decides where they play, and what started them
The same Swedish survey asks what matters most when choosing where to gamble, and Britain’s regulator has asked what bonuses and free bets actually do. Together they describe the two sexes arriving at the same products by different routes.
It holds a national licence
Availability, easy to play
A well known brand
Good odds or payout rate
Range of products
Fast payouts
A tip from a friend or forum
An offer or welcome bonus
Payment methods offered
Regulator, 574 men and 513 women. A single-choice question, which is why bonuses sit at 1%. Asked as a multiple-choice question elsewhere, bonuses come back far higher. The question decides the answer.
| What men and women say | Men | Women |
|---|---|---|
| Choosing an operator: that it holds a national license | 47% | 43% |
| Choosing an operator: availability and ease of play | 17% | 26% |
| Choosing an operator: good odds or a high payout percentage | 8% | 4% |
| Choosing an operator: a tip from a friend or a forum | 1% | 3% |
| Choosing an operator: an offer or welcome bonus | 1% | 1% |
| Gambled for the first time ever because of a bonus offer | 24% | 33% |
| Switched to a different operator because of an offer | 39% | 31% |
| Started a new type of gambling because of an offer | 30% | 25% |
| Say they like receiving offers | 45% | 32% |
| Would prefer not to receive offers at all | 43% | 55% |
| Receive offers daily | 8% | 12% |
Read the table from the bottom up and it tells one story. Women receive more offers, like them less, and are more likely to want them stopped. Yet a third of women say a bonus produced their first ever bet, against a quarter of men. For men the same offers do something different: they move an existing gambler to another operator or another product. The industry uses one tool for two jobs, recruitment on one side and cross-selling on the other.
Advertising is aimed more unequally than gambling is actually distributed. A study of 411 adverts from 88 licensed operators, pulled from the Meta Ad Library under European transparency rules, found Irish gambling ads reached 12.6 million accounts for men against 5.4 million for women, a ratio of 2.3 to 1 against a participation ratio nearer 1.2 to 1. Ninety-one of the 411 ads, 22%, were targeted at men only. None were targeted at women only.
The authors of the British account study made the same point from the other direction years earlier, noting that safer gambling campaigns built around football betting had little relevance to many of the women in their data.
Ask the question a different way and the answer changes completely, which is the most important caution on this page. Asked to pick any factors that would influence their choice of brand, UK bingo players put bonuses first at 65% and ease of use second at 52.7%, against the 1% bonuses scored in Sweden when people were asked for the single most important factor.
Panel survey, multiple answers allowed. Neither figure is wrong. One measures what decides, the other what registers.
| What else moves them | Figure |
|---|---|
| Engage with gambling brands on social media | 10.6%, down from 34% in 2023 |
| Say a celebrity endorsement makes them more likely to engage | 11.1%, against 26.1% who say it makes them less likely |
| Say withdrawal policies influence their choice of brand | 30.3% |
| Find comparison sites valuable | 4.0% very valuable, 61.1% not valuable |
| Preferred payment method | Debit cards 68.8% and PayPal 15.3%, against 40% and 33% in 2023 |
| Expect their habits to stay the same over the next year | 69.4%, against 22.5% expecting to play less |
Three of those rows are worth more than they look. Celebrity endorsement runs backwards, putting off more than twice as many players as it attracts. Social media engagement with gambling brands has collapsed by two thirds in two years. And a solid majority do not find comparison sites useful, which is a finding a review site should publish about itself rather than bury.
Convenience is the other asymmetry worth noting. Ease of play is the deciding factor for 26% of women against 17% of men, while men are twice as likely to choose on odds or payout percentage. Among British women who gamble, the most common activities after lottery draws are scratchcards at 32% and online instant win games at 14%, both of which are bought rather than studied.
Part four. Where it leads
Harm runs two to one. Treatment runs four to one.
There is no single correct answer to “how much more likely are men to have a gambling problem”, because the ratio moves with the screening threshold. All three bands come from the same survey and the same year.
PGSI 1 to 2, low risk 1.32 : 1
PGSI 3 to 7, moderate risk 2.11 : 1
PGSI 8+, problem gambling 1.96 : 1
Regulator. These are percentages of past-year gamblers, not of all adults. That distinction is the most commonly dropped qualifier in the subject.
Then the picture inverts. Britain’s treatment network sorts its clients into people who gamble and people harmed by somebody else’s gambling, and the sex balance flips between the two.
Clients who gamble (6,210 people)
Clients harmed by someone else's gambling (1,040 people)
Clinical, year to 31 March 2025. About 39% of female clients enter the system as harmed third parties, against under 3% of male clients.
The two groups also gamble in different places, and the split by sex is wider than anywhere else on this page.
Online
Bookmakers
Casino
Adult arcade (18+)
Pub
Live events
Bingo premises
Family arcade
Miscellaneous
Clinical, same year. Bookmakers are the sharpest divide in the whole dataset. Note that this population inverts the national channel finding: among people in treatment, women are more likely than men to gamble online.
The two sexes also arrive at different ages. The median woman is 40 at referral, the median man 35, on a caseload whose overall median is 36.
Both halves are needed. Counted as gamblers, women are 22% of the caseload. Counted as people damaged by gambling, they are 85.9%. Which sex has a gambling problem depends entirely on which side of the harm you count, and most articles quote only the first number.
Treatment share is also not prevalence share. Women are roughly a third of the population at the problem-gambling threshold but 22% of gambling treatment clients, and the regulator shows where the rest go: among women who gambled, 1.4% used food banks and 1.1% used mental health services, against 0.8% who used gambling support services. Every treatment caseload statistic understates women’s share of harm.
Age moves these numbers further than sex does
Everything above compares men with women. Put age on the same denominator and the sex gap stops looking like the main effect. Men are about twice as likely as women to reach the problem-gambling threshold. Across age bands the same measure moves by a factor of eighteen.
Regulator, reproduced by GambleAware from the 2024 survey. Share of all British adults, so these are smaller than the past-year-gambler figures earlier on this page.
The two axes compound rather than substitute. A young man is not at the male rate or the young rate but at something well past both.
And the harm skew inverts with age exactly as it inverts with who is counted. Among British treatment clients the male share falls almost monotonically from 88.9% of under-20s to 45.4% of 55 to 59 year olds. The oldest bands are majority female. A service built around the young male archetype is mis-specified for the older half of its own caseload.
Then the participation data turns the generational story upside down. Young adults gamble least, not most. British participation is lowest at 18 to 24, at 33%, and peaks at 55 to 64, at 55%. Seven national surveys that barely resemble one another, in Britain, Australia, Canada, Finland, the Netherlands, Germany and the United States, all put the youngest adult band lowest.
Lottery is doing that work too. Take lottery-only players out of the same British survey, the same 20,775 people, and the peak moves to 25 to 44. Both figures are correct, and quoting either alone produces a false story about which generation gambles.
Spending runs the other way from harm. In the same account data, mean spending by online players rises steeply across eight age bands and peaks at 55 to 64, with the over-65s not far behind. The youngest players carry the most risk and the least money.
One more number explains why treatment statistics are a poor guide to any of this. Median age of onset is 24, median age at referral is 36, and the median client has gambled for ten years before presenting. Caseloads describe the gambling of a decade ago.
The only group whose participation is rising significantly anywhere in the British series is men aged 55 and over, from 27% to 32% over three years. The Commission says the pattern was not seen among women. Harm in that cohort has not risen in anything published, and three explanations fit: the new play is low-risk in form, the ten-year lag has not elapsed, or older harm goes undetected because the screening and the referral routes were built around young online men.
Part five. Checking the numbers
One regulator counts accounts by sex. Several count them by age.
In March 2026 Spain’s gambling directorate published a sex breakdown of licensed-operator returns. Women were 16.9% of online gambling users, 335,627 of 1,991,550, with 59.4% of them under 35 and the female total growing 23.53% year on year, faster than men’s. Spain is not the first regulator to count accounts. The Dutch regulator has done it twice a year for several cycles, and Portugal quarterly for longer. What makes Spain unusual is the sex column: the Dutch and Portuguese releases break accounts down by age and not by sex at all.
Set that against Britain’s survey figure of 44% and the gap is 27 points on the same nominal subject. They are not in conflict. A survey counts anyone who spent money on anything, including one lottery ticket bought in a shop. Account data counts registered commercial online accounts, which exclude the retail lottery population almost entirely. The distance between the two numbers is a measurement of how much of women’s gambling is lottery.
Spain also publishes women’s average annual deposit of €2,019 and average annual loss of €539, with no male comparator, so no ratio can be formed from it.
One caution applies to every account figure on this page. Accounts are not people. Brazil publishes 100,775,427 betting accounts against 25,245,319 unique taxpayer IDs for 2025, almost four to one, and the Philippines regulator cut a published figure of 32 million users to about 10 million on the same grounds. Account counts are therefore worthless as headcounts. Account shares, like Spain’s 16.9%, survive better, but only if people of each sex hold the same number of accounts, and nobody publishes that.
Statistics to stop repeating
| The claim | What’s wrong with it |
|---|---|
| “Half of online casino players are women” | The poll behind it surveyed 801 registered voters in August 2024, is routinely misdated to November, and never reports the share of players who are women. It reports past-year online casino play at 10% of men and 5% of women. The near-parity figure quoted from it rests on about 68 people per sex with no published subgroup margin. |
| “Men are X times more likely to develop a gambling problem” | No single value is correct. Defensible published ratios run from 1.32 to 1.96 in the 2025 survey depending on the band, and reach 4 in the 2021 Health Survey which used a different threshold and a different denominator. Anything above about 4, or any figure quoted without naming band, denominator and survey, is unsupported. |
| “5% of British men have a gambling problem” | The 5.3% figure is a share of men who gambled in the past year, not of all men. The whole-population rate is 2.4% of adults. The regulator published a correction about exactly this class of error. |
| “The gender gap in gambling harm is closing” | Produced by comparing a 2021 survey with a 2023-onward one. That crosses a methodology break, swaps the threshold and swaps the denominator at the same time. Within one consistent method the British gap has been flat for three years. |
| “70 to 85% of bingo players are female” | A 15-point band is an estimate, not a measurement, and no source was traceable. Two independent 2023 to 2025 measurements put it at 62.9% overall and 56.7% online. |
| Per-product splits such as “72% of sports bettors are men” | These trace to one study by an affiliate site, sampled from new depositors at 526 affiliate-tracked websites, with no year stated and “chance-based” never defined. |
| “Young women are the fastest growing group of gamblers” | Nobody ranks growth across age and sex cells, so the claim cannot be checked against any published source. It traces to a treatment provider’s statistics page that cites nothing for the sentence. The two real anchors nearby are Spain’s 23.53% growth in female accounts and women under 30 going from 6% to 16% on US online sports betting, and neither is a ranked growth figure. |
| “Women are twice as likely as men to develop problems online” | Asserted in a 2026 fact sheet. It contradicts every population dataset, all of which put men at roughly twice women’s rate. Most plausibly a conditional finding inside one online sub-sample, repeated as a general risk ratio. |
What nobody publishes
These absences are findings. Several are structural rather than oversights.
- Any sex split for online slots, live dealer or esports betting. Slots is the largest online casino vertical by revenue and the newest figure, about a third of slots customers, is from 2019 account data.
- Any sex-disaggregated crypto gambling data. The leading on-chain analysis covers over 2 million wallets and contains no demographic breakdown of any kind. Wallets are pseudonymous, so that method structurally cannot produce one, and crypto casinos sit outside the jurisdictions whose regulators run participation surveys. Neither available method can close this gap.
- Any figure for age of first gambling split by sex. Nineteen documents checked across regulators, treatment services, academic studies and panels, and not one publishes it. The only onset figure anywhere is the median age of 24 from treatment records, which describes people who developed a problem rather than people who started gambling.
- Any current regulator figure for spending that has both sexes in it.
- Any British figure crossing sex with age for a specific product. The regulator publishes activity by sex and by age as separate lists, never crossed, so no cell exists for women 18 to 24 on slots.
- Any sex-disaggregated data on VIP schemes or loyalty programs, from any regulator, researcher or operator.
- Any sex split by device. Affiliate claims that women are mobile-first have no traceable basis.
- Any European national problem-gambling rate split by sex outside Great Britain for 2024 to 2026.
How to check this yourself
A page arguing that other people’s numbers are unverifiable has to be checkable itself.
| The claim | How to check it |
|---|---|
| The channel gap | Open the GSGB 2025 participation page and read the in-person and online rows excluding lottery. The Commission prints both. |
| The harm ratio | Open the GSGB 2025 consequences page. Check which PGSI band you are quoting and confirm the base is past-year gamblers. |
| The treatment inversion | Open the NGSN annual statistics and find the split between clients who gamble and other clients. Both numbers are in the same table. |
| Spain’s 16.9% | Open the ministry release of 5 March 2026. It gives the absolute counts, so you can divide it yourself. |
| Any sex statistic you meet elsewhere | Ask three questions: percentage of whom, measured over what period, and by a survey or by counting accounts. Most claims fail the first. |
What sits behind this
Half the figures on this page come from the UK Gambling Commission, which means this is substantially an article about Britain with international comparison. That is a limitation of the evidence base rather than a choice. No United States federal body publishes any-gambling participation by sex at all, and the most quoted American figure names neither its instrument nor its threshold, so it cannot be compared with anything.
Britain’s series contains two methodology breaks, one for COVID and one for a change of survey mode, and both sit before 2023. So no figure before 2023 is comparable with any figure after it, and every figure from 2023 onward is comparable with every other. That is what licenses the one significant trend quoted above. Where sources disagree, both appear with the reason. If you find an error, tell us and we will correct it with the date shown.
Sources
Every figure above traces to one of these.
- UK Gambling Commission, GSGB Annual Report 2025, participationgamblingcommission.gov.uk
- UK Gambling Commission, GSGB Annual Report 2025, consequencesgamblingcommission.gov.uk
- UK Gambling Commission, GSGB Trends Report 2023 to 2025gamblingcommission.gov.uk
- UK Gambling Commission, participation wave 4, Sept 2025 to Jan 2026gamblingcommission.gov.uk
- UK Gambling Commission, women and gamblinggamblingcommission.gov.uk
- UK Gambling Commission, open letter on the misuse of gambling statisticsgamblingcommission.gov.uk
- UK Gambling Commission, free bets and bonuses researchgamblingcommission.gov.uk
- UK Gambling Commission, Young People and Gambling 2025gamblingcommission.gov.uk
- GambleAware, NGSN annual statistics 2024/25gambleaware.org
- GambleAware, Patterns of Playgambleaware.org
- Spain, Ministerio de Derechos Sociales y Consumo / DGOJ, 5 March 2026dsca.gob.es
- Spelinspektionen, Allmanheten om spel 2025spelinspektionen.se
- ANU, Gambling in Australia 2025 polis.cass.anu.edu.au/files/docs/2025/10/Gambling-in-Australia-2025-for-publication-v2.pdfpolis.cass.anu.edu.au
- AIHW, gambling in Australiaaihw.gov.au
- Canadian Center on Substance Use and Addiction, November 2025ccsa.ca
- Pew Research Center, Americans and legal sports betting, October 2025pewresearch.org
- WhichBingo, 2025 bingo players surveywhichbingo.co.uk
- YouGov, Britain and the online bingo market business.yougov.com/content/48116-trends-in-britains-online-bingo-market-and-the-biggest-players-in-the-industrybusiness.yougov.com
- McHale & Forrest, Journal of Gambling Studies 2024, revenue concentration link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10899-024-10329-zlink.springer.com
- Petrovskaya et al., Journal of Behavioral Addictions 2026, gambling ads by sexdoi.org
- University of Cambridge, gambling ads reach twice as many mencam.ac.uk
- Fairleigh Dickinson University poll, online bettingfdu.edu
- National Council on Problem Gambling, NGAGE 3.0ncpgambling.org
- Health Survey for England 2021, gambling digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/health-survey-for-england/2021-part-2/gamblingdigital.nhs.uk
- TRM Labs, on-chain gambling volumetrmlabs.com
- DGOJ, analisis del perfil del jugador online 2014ordenacionjuego.es
- Massachusetts Council on Gaming and Health, gambling and gender fact sheetmacgh.org
- Gambling Insider, BritishGambler studygamblinginsider.com
- GambleAware, gambling and mental health harms among young adults, October 2025gambleaware.org
- Kansspelautoriteit, monitoring report online gambling, autumn 2025kansspelautoriteit.nl
- SRIJ Portugal, online gambling statistics Q4 2025srij.turismodeportugal.pt
- DataSenado Brazil, betting participation surveywww12.senado.leg.br
- UK Gambling Commission, GSGB trends report findings 2023 to 2025gamblingcommission.gov.uk
- Birches Health, women and gambling statistics pagebircheshealth.com