Tag: #monopoly

The result of my prediction and other notes on the content of gambling legislation

I wrote this text at the beginning of April for the http://www.finnplay.com.

In my blog, published on February 27, 2024, I made predictions about the content of Finland’s future gambling legislation. At that time, I promised to assess the success of my predictions once the bill had been passed. Parliament began considering the legislative package on March 25, so now is the right time to return to the matter, although the content of the law may still change in Parliament, at least in some details.
Toward the end of this blog, I will discuss the planned schedule for our new gambling system and highlight a few content issues that I will not cover in my assessment of my prediction skills.
So here are my guesses about 1 year and 1 month ago and my assessment of their success.

  1. License-based system games: online casino, and sports and horse betting in both sales channels. The government program states that at least online casino games and digital channel betting will be transferred to the license-based system. However, I believe sports and horse betting will be transferred to the licensed side. It is crucial for the system to function correctly that the license entitles the operator to operate games in the retail and digital channels.
    My prediction was correct. The gambling license allows for providing fixed-odds and variable-odds sports and horse betting in digital and retail channels. Licensed companies can also offer digital bingo games, online casino games (e.g., roulette, card and dice games), and digital slot games. The exclusive licenses granted for ten years, which effectively constitute a monopoly, cover scratch cards and lottery games in both channels and slot machines and casino operations in a physical environment.
  2. License: Separate licenses for casino games and betting (including fixed-odds, pool-based sports and horse betting), with a license price of approximately 50000€. I support a system where one license would allow all games within the license-based system to be operated.
    The prediction was incorrect, but the solution is a model I announced that I support. A gambling license granted for five years at a time will enable the provision of all games that have moved to the multi-license system, meaning that there will be no separate licenses for betting and digital casino games. The license application fee has not yet been published but is presumably low. The license system will include an annual supervision fee, the price of which is tied to the gambling company’s annual GGR. The minimum price is 4000€ (GGR under 100k€) and the maximum is 434 000€ (GGR over 50M€).
  3. Tax rate: 20 – 25% of GGR. I would create a system where the tax rate varies depending on how dangerous the games are. With this logic, online casino games would have the highest tax rate, fixed-odds betting a slightly lower rate, and pool-based sports and horse betting the lowest.
    My prediction was correct, but the model I saw as the best solution did not come true. The proposed tax rate is 22 % of the GGR (i.e., the money lost by customers). In addition, gambling companies operating under a Finnish license will also have to pay income tax to Finland, like other companies.
  4. Marketing: Only brand advertising (company and product) is allowed. It is possible to advertise casino games on radio, TV, and other streaming channels for a limited time. Bonuses will be strictly restricted. Affiliate activities will be restricted. Sports sponsorship is allowed, but visibility for children and young people will be minimized.
    The prediction was reasonably, but not wholly, correct. Gambling companies can advertise in mass media (TV, radio, print newspapers) reasonably freely. Still, there will be a long list of restrictions on the marketing content. In addition, advertising must include certain specified elements, such as an age limit for gambling. Marketing is also allowed in outdoor advertising and sports sponsorship, where only the operator’s brand but not products may be visible. Affiliate marketing and the use of influencers are completely prohibited, according to the bill. License holders are allowed to advertise on social media. Still, the advertising may not be interactive, meaning customers may not have the opportunity to comment, and third parties are not allowed to share those texts. Bonuses may only be given to existing customers; even then, the bonuses may not be based on gambling activity or volume. Welcome bonuses may not be used at all.
  5. Gambling limits: Initially, a company-specific deposit limit applies to casino games if Finland ends up with separate casino and betting licenses. The deposit limit may also apply to betting games. If this happens, customers can apply for a higher deposit limit based on their income or other assets. In the coming years, the company-specific deposit limit may be replaced by a customer-specific limit when the monitoring system allows this. I think that a deposit limit is a better solution than a gambling or loss limit.
    The prediction was reasonably accurate. A gambling company-specific deposit limit is coming into effect, which customers must set themselves before they can start gambling. No upper limit has been set for the company-specific deposit limit, at least for now. The bill allows the Government to issue a decree later on, which can tighten the deposit limit policy. Initially, there will be no other limits on gambling. Still, the Ministry of the Interior will have the right to issue a decree, which will later allow it to impose maximum bets and other restrictions on high-risk gambling products.
  6. B2B license: The B2B license will not be implemented immediately, at least not when the system changes. Instead, technology and game suppliers will be set certification requirements that they must meet. The B2B license may be implemented at a later date if, for example, the experiences in Sweden show it to be a good solution.
    The prediction was almost entirely wrong. The new gambling system is expected to come into practice at the beginning of 2027 when companies that have received a gambling license can start operating and marketing gambling activities. Finland will also introduce a gambling software license, the same as the B2B license. This system will be introduced at the beginning of 2028, i.e., with a one-year delay compared to the B2C license. Since 2028, gambling companies with a gambling license may only use gambling technology and products offered by B2B license companies. B2B licensees may not provide their technology and games to operators that have Finnish customers but do not have a Finnish gambling license.
  7. Cooling-off: Finland will not introduce a cooling-off period. Since the gambling system’s practical entry into force seems to have been postponed to early 2027, the risk of using a cooling-off period has increased somewhat. I don’t think Finland will introduce new regulations just for one year, which I believe would be required if the cooling-off period were introduced.
    This prediction is a bit challenging to assess. Officially, there is no cooling-off period coming to Finland, so in that sense, my prediction is correct. On the other hand, the bill states that a gambling license will not be granted to an entity that has been issued a prohibition order or imposed a penalty payment for violating the current Lottery Act after September 1, 2024. The purpose of this procedure is very similar to the cooling-off period, so based on this, I judge my prediction to have been almost wrong.
  8. Supervision & Regulation: A new supervisory authority will be established in Finland. The new authority will probably no longer be under the Ministry of the Interior. It will be established under either the Ministry of Finance or the Ministry of Employment and the Economy. Supervision will require a new technological system and many new officials. The new regulator must be able to intervene more strictly than currently in gambling activities that are carried out without a Finnish license.
    The prediction was correct. The current regulator, the National Police Board, will continue in its role until the end of 2026 and will handle the transition to a license-based system. At the beginning of 2027, a new Licensing and Supervision Authority will start operating under the administration of the Ministry of Finance. The new authority will act as the supervisor of the new gambling system from the very beginning. The pre-bidding for the technical systems required for supervision work has been ongoing since the spring of 2025. I still agree with myself that it is crucial for the functioning of the gambling system that the regulator has the ability and desire to intervene in illegal activities significantly better than in Sweden, for example.
    Gambling products are not allowed to be purchased on credit, so using a credit card to pay for games is prohibited. Instead, payment applications may be used if they are based on debit payment. The use of cryptocurrencies in gambling activities is completely prohibited. Customers must be able to block themselves from all gambling with the click of a button. Blocking a specific gambling company or product group (e.g., digital casino games) must also be possible.
    Regarding the overall legislation, it is essential to note that the bill allows the Government and the Ministry of the Interior to issue decrees (regulations) that can influence practical gambling activities. The Government can, for example, set maximum loss limits for gambling companies. In turn, the Ministry of the Interior can specify maximum bets, maximum winnings, and the possibility of using the autoplay feature for the highest-risk games, for example, digital casino games. The bill does not include payment and IP blocking, but they can be returned if the channelization rate cannot be increased to the desired level.
    The bill is currently being considered by Parliament and is expected to be completed before Parliament goes on summer recess, i.e., by the end of June. The law will enter into force in early 2026 when the supervisory authority will start the gambling license process. The first phase of licenses is expected to be granted by autumn 2026. In practice, gambling operations based on the new legislation are planned to begin in Finland from the beginning of 2027.

The Statement of The Finnish Gambling Consultants about the proposed Finnish Gambling Bill

Background

FGC would like to thank the government for the proposal, which aims to open the Finnish gambling market to competition partially. In the preliminary work section of the bill, the situation is well described to which the gambling system, according to the current monopoly model, has taken the Finnish gambling market. The channeling ability of the system in competing product groups has already sunk too low. When planning a new system, it is paramount that the channeling capacity of the system be restored to a high enough level, preferably close to the 90 % level. The responsibility measures that control gambling activities remain ineffective without a sufficiently high channelization rate because the authorities’ measures are only effective for regulated gambling.

FGC considers that there is a lot of good in the given proposal. The channeling ability of the Finnish gambling system would improve significantly if the new Gambling Act were implemented in the form presented. However, the 90 % channelization rate mentioned above would not be reached by this proposal.

Overall opinion on the proposed bill

The good side of the bill is that it aims to create a gambling system where gambling companies have the opportunity to do business, but at the same time, the number of gambling problems should not increase. The goal of expanding the channelization rate as high as possible is the only correct solution from the point of view of the realization of business and responsibility. However, FGC wonders why the essential solution for reducing gambling problems, moving all slot machines to age-restricted premises, is missing from the proposal.

According to FGC’s view, there are several contradictions between the individual sections of the bill and the overall goals. Products with a high-profit rate for the gambling company (Veikkaus) remain on the monopoly side, which is why the proposal inevitably shows that the real reasons for the presented product division are purely fiscal. Fiscal reasons, however, cannot justify a gambling monopoly according to EU law. In addition, the products, except slot machines, proposed for monopoly do not significantly cause gambling problems.

The apparent inconsistency of the bill is in marketing and operations as a whole. According to the proposal, gambling companies could not use bonuses or third parties, such as affiliates. Still, other marketing and sales promotions would be pretty accessible. This includes a significant contradiction in the pursuit of a high degree of channeling and decreasing gambling problems. FGC believes that gambling companies should be able to compete against illegal offerings specifically in digital channels. From the point of view of increasing the channeling ability, there would be no similar need for the abundant marketing of gambling in physical channels and Finnish mass media because illegal operators are not visible in these media. In the best comparison country, Sweden, gambling advertising in the mass media increased enormously some years before the actual gambling system change and has remained at a very high level after the change compared to gambling advertising in Finland. Due to abundant mass media advertising, the general opinion of citizens towards gambling in Sweden became significantly more negative than before because the media was full of gambling advertising.

Based on the proposal, the Finnish state wants to maintain a dual role, taking care of the legislation and supervision of gambling activities and, at the same time, owning the company involved in gambling activities. There is a high risk of conflict of interest in such a model. State ownership of a gambling company operating in a competitive market is at least a questionable solution. The Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority and the Chancellor of Justice have already raised this same issue in their statements.

In this statement, FGC writes its observations about the Gambling Act and proposes corrective measures and changes to the proposal.

General notes:

General note about potentially incorrect information appearing in the proposal

The material supporting the bill is comprehensive and of high quality. However, there is one very relevant piece of information in the background material that we believe is debatable, if not even incorrect. In the preliminary works, it is implied that the channelization rate of the Swedish gambling system would have remained high in recent years. The Swedish authorities’ assessments of channelization rate are used as justification for this. In Sweden, the authorities’ assessments have been strongly criticized by operators in the gambling industry. The biggest operator in the Swedish license market, ATG, the former horse betting monopoly holder, has independently investigated the system’s channelization rate with more credible methods than the authorities. ATG has analyzed and modeled the observed network traffic and mirrored it to existing accurate gambling and customer data numbers.

The total volume of the Swedish license system has remained practically constant since the end of 2020. However, according to ATG’s research, overall gambling in product groups belonging to the license-based market has increased, and all growth seems to have been directed to gambling companies outside the system. ATG does not present an exact estimate of the channelization rate of the license-based system but implies that it could move around 70 – 82 % level at the end of 2023. The channelization rate of digital casino games seems to be significantly lower than the average, and the channeling rate of betting games is correspondingly better than the average. FGC attaches to its statement a summary (Appendix 1) of ATG’s approximately 30-page research report, which FGC has received permission from ATG to distribute. FGC believes that, if needed, the full ATG research report is available for use.

FGC points out that if ATG’s estimates of the supposed weaker channeling ability of digital casino games are correct, there is a significant risk that the channeling rate of digital casino games in Finland will not rise in line with the goals if the final law is what the Ministry of the Interior has proposed. This would be particularly harmful from the point of view of addressing gambling problems. Based on the data obtained from Sweden, specifically problematic gambling tends to move outside the system more easily than other gambling.

General note on the proposed regulation

FGC points out that the proposal has left significant issues regarding the final implementation of the gambling system behind the regulatory powers. This applies, in particular, to items under section 31. From the point of view of ensuring the functionality of the system and its channeling ability, the appropriateness of the parameters behind the settings can decide the success of the final result. Suppose the parameters given through the settings are adjusted incorrectly. In that case, the success of the entire reform may be at stake, and the result may be the worst possible – a license-based system with weak channeling capabilities.

FGC’s improvement proposal: To maintain the gambling system’s overall objectives, overall control should be maintained when making regulatory-level decisions. The Government, not individual ministries, should issue the final regulations (settings) on gambling.

General note on the tax treatment of unlicensed gambling winnings

The proposal contained in the bill to regulate unlicensed gambling winnings as taxable requires changes. FGC considers the proposed goal of extending taxation to all digital gambling outside the system to be correct and consistent. However, it includes shortcomings and challenges to the fair treatment of citizens. According to the proposal, stakes used for lost games may not be deducted from taxation. This creates an unfair situation, especially for players with gambling problems who gamble outside the system more often than other customers. If a person with a gambling problem loses, for example, 10 000 euros in unlicensed digital casino games, he could, for example, have gambled 200 000 euros and received winnings of around 190 000 euros. About three out of four rounds may have been ones in which the player won nothing, and those stakes are not tax deductible. As a result, a problem gambler who lost 10 000 euros receives a taxable income of around 140 000 euros in this example, in addition to the losses. (Appendix 2 opens up the example case a little more). This unfair outcome significantly worsens the situation of the problem gambler.

FGC’s improvement proposal: Regulated tax penalties should apply to the net winnings generated from gambling during one calendar year. This means all taxable gambling winnings the player has achieved during the calendar year, minus all bets and losses of the corresponding period.

General note on Veikkaus’ group structure from a competition law point of view

Customer base and technology

Based on the bill, the part of Veikkaus that continues in the license-based market may have a competitive advantage due to Veikkaus’s monopoly operation. This cannot be considered an action acceptable under competition law. The draft of the proposal even admits that the chosen solution seeks synergy between the operation that will remain a monopoly and the company that will switch to the license-based side.

In FGC’s opinion, there should be a clear policy on whether Veikkaus’s current customers can be transferred to a company continuing in the license market in a way that it cannot be considered a benefit from customers obtained from the monopoly operations. The calculated value of the customer base is at least hundreds of millions of euros. FGC also points out that if the part of Veikkaus continuing into the license market were allowed to utilize all of Veikkaus’ current existing customer base, Veikkaus’ license company would be given a substantial competitive advantage compared to the operators entering the market.

A company operating in a competitive market may not use the same resources as a monopoly company from the same group in a way that distorts competition. Dividing Veikkaus into several companies includes a plan to establish a separate technology company. The plan consists of the risk that the monopoly company and the license-based company will use common technology, for which, according to the plan, compensation will be paid at the market price. Determining the amount of such compensation will be challenging and, in some cases, even impossible.

FGC’s improvement proposal: To avoid problems with competition law, it would be stipulated that the Veikkaus group companies should not use joint technical solutions related to gambling. That would be the same rule as in Sweden.

The games in physical slot machines

According to the bill, slot machines, which would continue to be thousands all over Finland, continue to be covered by Veikkaus’s monopoly. These machines would have the same casino games developed mainly by Veikkaus, which Veikkaus’s license-based company would offer in the competitive license market. Those slot machines would be a significant marketing channel for the games in question, from which Veikkaus’s license company would also gain a significant competitive advantage.

FGC’s improvement proposal: A single product or game would be offered only in the monopoly or license-based market so that the customer knows which group’s game he is playing. Veikkaus’s monopoly and license companies should not offer the same product or game.

Detailed considerations:

Note on mandatory limits

Based on the proposal, the customer would be forced to set limits on gambling when setting up a betting account, which would aim to prevent harmful gambling. FGC wants to point out that although ideologically, the idea sounds valid, the practical experiences of the gambling industry have been different. In practice, it has been noticed that when a problem gambling customer hits the limits, he rarely stops gambling. Instead, gambling continues either with another official operator or, in the worst case, outside the legal system. Mandatory limits are not a good way to curb problem gambling but an excellent way to weaken the channeling ability of the gambling system.

FGC points out that making gambling limits mandatory was the biggest reason that Veikkaus’s channeling rate, especially in digital casino games, started dropping rapidly at the end of 2018. In the new system, the effect of the obligation to set limits to the channelization rate would not be as dramatic because the customer could continue gambling with the service of another licensed operator. In practice, however, players would be forced to change gambling operators. In connection with such a change, the risk of the customer switching to gambling for an operator outside the system is always tangible.

FGC’s improvement proposal: Setting gambling limits should be suggested to the customer during registration, but setting them should not be mandatory. The Ministry of the Interior should consider implementing gambling limits, for example, according to the Estonian model. In Estonia, the gambling operator must give customers the opportunity to set their limits during the customer registration process, but if the customer does not want to set them, he can, by his active decision, not set the limits.

In this context, FGC would also like to point out that if a solution is decided in the future where standard mandatory gambling upper limits are set for all players, customers should be able to increase their limits if they wish if they can demonstrate that their financial situation allows this. Such a solution ensures that the system’s channeling ability is maintained so that the risk of gambling problems does not significantly rise.

Note on bonuses

In FGC’s view, the categorical ban on all bonuses in the proposal is problematic when considering the system’s channeling ability. FGC agrees with the Ministry of the Interior that bonuses that encourage gambling can increase problematic gambling and, thus, gambling problems. Still, that would be a significantly smaller disadvantage than leaving the bonuses only for operators outside the system and helping channel gambling outside the system.

The importance of bonuses, especially for the customer experience of digital casino games and the profits of gambling companies, is enormous. The more active the customer is, the more critical the customer considers bonuses and other loyalty rewards offered by the operator. In general, the most active customers are problem gamblers or players whose gambling problem is developing. Suppose operators redeeming their licenses are denied all bonuses. In that case, the system’s channeling ability will fall significantly below the target level, as customers who are used to bonuses will move to gambling companies outside the system. It will be especially problematic if the players, who the system should be able to protect, move to play for operators outside the system.

FGC would also like to highlight that at most current international gambling companies, the implementations of bonuses and loyalty systems are often so complicated that not all players even understand how bonuses work and are available. If bonuses were partially allowed in the license-based system to improve consumer protection, it would be possible to demand clarity and simplicity from them so that consumers could understand the structures of the bonuses in detail.

FGC’s improvement proposal: The Ministry of the Interior should consider allowing bonuses in legislation so that bonuses can be given to the player, but their complicated wagering conditions would be prohibited. The bonus recycling condition should only require the customer to play the bonus money he received once through games, after which he could withdraw the remaining money for himself if he wished. With the presented change, the competitive conditions of legal operators would improve against supply outside the system, and the channeling capacity of the system would improve considerably. From the point of view of gambling problems, the legal offering would cause a few more disadvantages than the current one, but keeping customers who gamble especially problematically within the scope of the gambling system would bring a significantly more significant benefit. The society remains informed about possible problem gambling and can target actions to reduce problems only when the customer plays games from a legal operator.

Note on the categorical ban on marketing by third parties

The bill proposes that gambling marketing can only be done by licensed gambling operators. FGC considers that the categorical ban on the marketing of gambling by third parties is problematic and causes significant problems when evaluating the legality of various activities. To some extent, the regulation could be improved by defining illegal marketing more precisely, but such a solution will not completely eliminate the problems.

Affiliate activity – business-like marketing

In the categorical ban on marketing by third parties, problems arise, especially with regard to various affiliate sites. These are typically international online sites that directly or indirectly advertise gambling services. It is not always clear which country’s regulation the affiliate operates under. FGC points out that the gambling legislation of many other countries allows the use of affiliate services.

FGC points out that leaving the entire affiliate activity outside of Finland’s official gambling system poses a significant risk to the system’s channeling ability. Existing affiliate operators already have an extensive customer base of Finnish customers. In Finland, a lot of searches related to gambling are made through search engines, especially Google, which direct people to affiliate sites. People do not stop such searches, and the direction of internet traffic to affiliate sites does not stop, even if affiliate activity is prohibited in Finnish gambling operations. In this case, affiliate operators would direct customer traffic to the pages of gambling companies operating without a license, weakening the gambling system’s channelization rate.

The bill has defined strict boundary conditions for all gambling marketing. If affiliate activities were allowed in Finland, these companies would have to follow the same marketing regulations as gambling operators and media companies. Affiliate activity should become significantly cleaner compared to the current practically completely unregulated situation.

FGC’s improvement proposal: The Ministry of the Interior should look for an implementation method to bring affiliate operators into the scope of official regulation. An alternative to be considered could be, for example, the Romanian model, where affiliate operators are required to have a separate business license, which could be part of the proposed supplier license.

Note on the presented product groups in exclusive and multi-license systems

In FGC’s opinion, the arguments for leaving certain product groups under exclusive rights seem artificial. The reasons given are that there is currently no competition in the product groups in question and that transferring those products to the multi-license system would increase the marketing of these products. This, in turn, would increase the gambling problems caused by these games. However, based on the proposed law, the monopoly would mainly be in those product groups that, according to studies, cause little or no gambling problems. Only physical casino and slot machine operations are an exception in this respect. For example, the inclusion of lottery game operations in the scope of monopoly cannot be credibly justified with these arguments.

In particular, FGC considers leaving pool-based horse betting and digital eInstants within the scope of Veikkaus’s exclusive right to be an incorrect solution, and no credible justifications have been presented for the proposal.

Pool-based horse betting (Tote games)

In the case of Tote games, the existing high channelization rate and the fact that competition could increase the marketing of the products, and thus, the resulting gambling problems are presented as justifications. FGC points out that in the studies of both The Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare and the helpful line, Peluuri, Tote games have been one of the product groups that cause the least harm. Releasing them to the license-based system could increase the marketing of the products, but this could be considered mainly to direct the demand for less harmful gambling. In addition, concerning the channelization rate of Tote games, it must be understood that the high channelization rate is realized only because Veikkaus has a cooperation agreement to offer Swedish horse races with the Swedes in a common pool for Veikkaus’s customers. If the agreement were to cease to be valid for some reason, the majority of existing betting would be transferred to other operators operating without a Finnish license, and the high channelization rate of Tote games would collapse immediately.

Tote games are currently part of the license-based market in Sweden and Denmark. This is the digital sales channel situation in all European countries that have switched to a license-based gambling system. In the Netherlands, only one company can operate pool-based horse betting, but even that has gained its status through bidding. In Denmark, Tote games were initially on the side of the monopoly system. Still, that arrangement was found to be problematic and dysfunctional, as a result of which Tote games were moved to a competitive market in 2018.

FGC would also like to point out that section 26 of the draft law prohibits the organization of betting for gambling events/draws that are used in the monopoly business. In practice, the operating model would mean that operators applying for a business license in Finland would no longer be allowed to offer fixed-odds betting at those races where Tote games would be organized. This can be considered a significant regulation aimed at limiting competition because large international listed companies would apply for a Finnish license, and they compete against pool-based horse betting in Sweden with fixed odds betting products.

FGC assumes that section 26 and its justifications are written mainly from the point of view of lottery games. If Tote games were to be left as a monopoly, the proposal should be supplemented so that fixed-odds betting on the outcome of horse races would be possible. If Tote games are moved to the side of the multi-license system, this definition problem does not exist.

FGC’s improvement proposal: Pool-based horse betting/Tote games will be transferred to a multi-license system.

Digital eInstants

Regarding eInstants, FGC wants to point out that with the proposed regulation, Finland would return to the situation that led to the merger of three gambling companies at the beginning of 2017. The main reason for the merger was the weakening of the differentiation of Veikkaus’s and RAY’s products in the digital channel. The proposed regulation would do the same – not least because the proposal would allow eInstants draws to be made at the time of game purchase (RNG technology), just as in digital casino games. The visual implementation of eInstants and digital slot machines can be very identical. FGC wonders how the separation of these products can be handled reliably and how the consumer has the opportunity to identify which product group’s game he is playing.

FGC’s improvement proposal: eInstants would be included in the category of digital casino games and would, therefore, be moved to the side of the license-based system. Alternatively, eInstants could be arranged to be implemented technically so that their technical and visual implementation would differ significantly from the implementation of digital casino games.

Note on the possibility of the supervisory authority to regulate the activities outside the system

FGC considers it good that the bill aims to give the supervisory authority the means to intervene in the offering and marketing of unlicensed gambling in Finland. However, according to the FGC’s view, it seems that the vast majority of the proposed measures would affect the operations of license companies in particular. However, blocking payment and online traffic (IP) can be a reasonably effective way to reduce gambling outside the system.

FGC does not identify measures in the bill and its explanatory text that the supervisory authority could use to monitor gambling outside the Finnish system. According to FGC’s understanding, gambling outside Veikkaus is significantly more significant than the authorities estimate. It is practically impossible for the authorities to intervene in illegal supply if that supply is not even recognized. Technical systems and services would be available for monitoring and intervening in gambling, which could be used to significantly improve the system’s channeling capacity and increase the state’s tax revenues.

In the bill, great attention is paid to preventing betting-related incidents. At worst, match manipulation and other abuses are a problem for sports comparable to doping, or even worse. The bill says that Veikkaus’s own measures, FINCIS’s (Finnish Center for Integrity in Sports) operations, and ULIS’s (United Lotteries for Integrity in Sports) cooperation are excellent and sufficient measures to prevent abuses. In FGC’s opinion, this is unfortunately not the case. Finnish sports are likely also currently being used to organize illegal activities. Monitoring and preventing match manipulations should not remain the responsibility of the betting companies. Still, the authorities should take a more significant role in the matter than at present.

FGC has requested a description of the benefits of a modern monitoring system from Sportradar, which focuses on monitoring international gambling activities and preventing sports manipulation. That description is included in the appendices to our statement (Appendix 3).

FGC’s improvement proposal: The authority supervising gambling activities would be obliged to acquire technological systems that monitor and supervise gambling activities outside the license system. In addition, the regulator or other separately defined authority should join an international network that could be used to monitor global betting activities and identify possible abuses related to Finnish sports.

Minor notes

The proposed ban on using a credit card for money transfers does not protect those with gambling problems, even though that has been the explanation. In practice, that means the customer first transfers the money from the credit card to his bank account and then to his betting account. In practice, the regulation intended to protect those with gambling problems mainly results in a small additional cost for them. The ban on the use of credit cards, and especially debit cards, causes problems, especially for transactions at retail channels. In addition to the customer, the affected parties are especially retail outlets and Veikkaus, which offers gambling products in the retail channel.

The proposed procedure for lifting the indefinite gambling ban is problematic. When a customer wants to start gambling again after a break of at least a year, he is given the option of waiting three more months or moving to gamble outside the system. FGC considers that a person who hasn’t gambled for more than a year should have the opportunity to lift an indefinite ban immediately. There must be a separate consideration period to cancel short and fixed-term bans. However, if bans are valid indefinitely and have continued for over a year, that three-month consideration period will not accomplish anything other than the player moving to play outside the system.

Sincerely yours,

Jari Vähänen

Partner

The Finnish Gambling Consultants Oy

Finland has submitted the new Gambling Act for consultation

On Wednesday, July 3, we finally found out what kind of gambling legislation the Finnish government is planning for Finland. The published proposal has more than 400 pages, and I have only been familiar with it for a working day. So, my observations and opinions in this text are only preliminary, but I still want to share them with you. Finland has started the public hearing/consultation process, which will last until August 18. In principle, anyone can express their opinion on the bill during that time. According to the information I have received, this time, based on the consultation process, Finland is still ready to make changes to the gambling legislation. Because of this, it is not yet time to make assessments about how right the guesses I presented at the beginning of the year about the content of the law turned out to be in the end.

The schedule of the process has been specified. After the consultation process, changes are made to the law, after which the bill is sent to the EU notification process. After the EU notification, the proposal will proceed to the Finnish parliament in the spring of 2025, and the law is supposed to be approved during the next year. Part of the content of the bill will enter into force already in 2026, but in practice, Finland will switch to a partial license-based gambling system from the beginning of 2027. Some things will not be implemented until 2028, so there should be enough time for the preparation.

Monopoly and other licenses

In current Finnish legislation, Veikkaus’ gambling monopoly is defined in law. In the new system, monopoly games will be granted an exclusive license for a period of ten years, which can only be given to a company under the direct control of the Finnish state, i.e., Veikkaus in practice. According to the proposal, the product areas covered by the monopoly are scratch cards (including eInstants), lottery games (e.g., lotto products and Keno), slot machines, physical casinos, and pool-based horse betting. The product areas that will be transferred to the license system are fixed odds betting (also includes horse racing), pool-based sports betting/games, digital casino games (roulette, craps, card games – poker), and digital slot machines and digital bingo. A gambling license is granted for five years.

In the list of monopoly products, pool-based horse betting, which accounts for 3-4 percent of all gambling in Finland, is the most surprising. It is not an important matter from the point of view of the whole, and therefore, keeping it within Veikkaus’ monopoly is strange, especially when the horse racing industry would like to transfer the games to the licensing side. I’m sure it will be a hard-fought battle in the coming months. I guess that pool-based horse betting will eventually be moved to the license side, where pool-based sports games already are.

The price of the gambling license is tied to the size of the operator’s gross gaming revenue. The minimum payment is 4000 euros, and the maximum price is 265000 euros if the GGR is over 50 M€/year. The gambling tax will be 22 % of the GGR, which is quite reasonable.

B2B license in 2028

Finland also introduces the “Game software license.” However, this license is not required immediately in connection with the change in the gambling system but from the beginning of 2028. The B2B license application process will be started at some point during 2027, and the license will be valid for five years. A game software license practically means that the license holder is obliged to use only the software and games of the game software license holder. The price of the license will be very affordable, i.e. only 1500 euros.

As a general rule, gambling IT systems must be located in Finland. There are two exceptions when IT systems can be somewhere else. If the supervisory authority of the country of location has a cooperation agreement with the Finnish supervisory authority, or the Finnish authority can verify the gambling IT system and its operation via a remote connection.

The supervising authority will issue all licenses. The current regulator, the National Police Board, is responsible for the legislation’s practical preparation. Still, a new agency, the Finnish Supervisory Agency, will be established under the Ministry of Finance to supervise the new gambling system. The new agency will start operating at the beginning of 2027.

Marketing is allowed but limited

Gambling marketing is allowed, but there are restrictions. The law has a list of prohibited gambling marketing, such as describing gambling as a way to solve financial problems. Sports sponsorship is also allowed, but there will be restrictions related to minors.

Marketing regarding the brand gambling companies and games may only be done by the gambling company itself. The law states that no other entity may do marketing related to gambling. This will significantly complicate the position of affiliate operators. On the other hand, the definition of advertising and communication will be complex, thanks to which, at least in betting, affiliates will also find their place in the Finnish market.

Gambling services and sites must not use interactive marketing. That means companies cannot discuss gambling issues with customers on social media, and operators are not allowed to offer customers the possibility of forwarding the gambling company’s publications.

Customers must give permission for direct marketing on their own initiative. The gambling terms must not automatically contain direct marketing permission, but they do require the active approval of the customers themselves.

The most interesting thing, and certainly one that receives a lot of criticism from current offshore companies, is the banning of bonuses. According to the law, gambling companies may not offer bonuses, either free games or games at a reduced price. In addition, the law has separately stated that using bonuses in all gambling marketing is prohibited.

Some other relevant matters of legislation

There is currently an option for payment blocking in Finland, which targets money transfers from Finland to gambling companies. In the new legislation, payment blocking is possible in both directions. Legislation has also specified that the blocking will also apply to cryptocurrencies, even though cryptocurrencies may not be used to pay for gambling at all. You also cannot pay for gambling with a credit card or buy it as a debt anyway. In addition to payment blocking, Finland can also implement network traffic blocking for gambling companies operating without a Finnish license.

There will be gambling company-specific money transfer limits, which the player must set (day and month) and can change. Those limits mean the amount of money that can be transferred from a bank account to a betting account. The state can set operator-specific maximum loss limits (daily, monthly, and annually) if it wishes, but this is not an automatic assumption.

The customer must have the option to set centralized prevention for all gambling, like Spellpaus in Sweden. In addition, the customer must be able to set himself a prevention for a particular gambling company’s games or part of them (a specific game or group of games).

JARI VÄHÄNEN

jari.vahanen@finnishgc.fi

The end of the monopoly

I have written this text for http://www.lotterydaily.com, and Charlie Horner has edited it.

Besides Norway, my home country, Finland, is the only country in western Europe where the entire gambling business is still based on a monopoly system. Some years ago, Norway seriously considered changing the system, but in the end, the country ended up with the opposite solution and only started strengthening the monopoly system. Finland reached the same solution, as a result of which the previous three gambling companies were merged into one monopoly company. That new company, Veikkaus, has been operating for almost six years, and the results have been anything but what was hoped for.

What is wrong with the monopoly system, and what are the reasons for failure in Finland? First, a few basics need to be explained.

It is a general fact that monopoly reduces business because the market economy does not get to work in the best possible way. Monopoly causes inefficiency, which has been considered a good thing in controlling the gambling business. According to the legislation of many countries, gambling is a business that has been prohibited in principle and which the state has then given an exemption to a company to operate. The basic idea has been to limit the activity significantly and thus protect people from the harmful effects of gambling. This kind of activity worked well in a situation where business was only done in the retail channel, but the situation changed radically with the internet.

It is generally thought that doing a gambling business and responsible operation are mutually exclusive things. This is fundamentally a wrong way of thinking. There is no direct correlation between gambling sales and the number of gambling problems, and increased gambling sales do not automatically increase the number of gambling problems. Responsibility measures to prevent gambling are not the best possible way to prevent gambling problems. We must definitely try to reduce the problems, but there must be more effective tools than making it more difficult to play.

The basic idea that monopoly itself prevents gambling problems is completely wrong. If that assumption were valid, Norway and Finland should have the fewest gambling problems in Europe. However, this is not the case; the situation is even the opposite.

Generally, wrong assumptions cause incorrect operating models and unrealistic goals. The functionality of a good gambling system does not depend on whether the system is monopoly or license-based. I believe that a monopoly can be a good model, but it requires excellent regulation to work, which correctly understands business fundamentals. Simply restricting the operation robs the system of its legitimacy in customers’ eyes. In such a situation, the official restrictions no longer work. Similarly, a license-based system can cause unnecessary problems if the regulation is not up to date.

What has gone wrong in Finland? In Finland, the state tried to protect the gambling system based on monopoly when it decided to merge the previous three companies (Fintoto, RAY and Veikkaus) into one company. The goal was to enable more efficient business operations when there was no longer a need to prevent competition between Finnish companies. The assumption was to increase gambling revenues and satisfy customers who receive international-level products and services from their own company. The single company model was also believed to help prevent gambling problems, as customers’ total gambling and potential problems can be monitored from one system.

The Lottery Act, which entered into force at the beginning of 2017, strongly emphasized responsible gaming. The legal text stated that Veikkaus’ task is to prevent gambling problems. In fact, this was the sole function of the gambling company by law. Not a word was mentioned in the law about the two other big goals mentioned in connection with the change, a competitive offer and a moderate increase in the level of profits.

New Veikkaus has had difficulties getting permits for new products and services from the beginning. At the same time, international gambling companies have continued their product and service development, the results of which have been easily available to Finnish customers via the internet and mobile channels. Although offshore companies have not been allowed to do marketing in Finland, information about the companies has spread widely, and an increasing number of Finns play money games for companies other than Veikkaus. Veikkaus, which used to take good care of its channeling task, has fallen from the top ranks of the development of the gambling world. Because of this, active Finnish gambling customers have moved to other companies.

The situation has escalated little by little. Veikkaus’ sales and GGR have decreased every year of the company’s operation. Veikkaus’ GGR was around €1.8bn when the company started operations. According to this year’s forecast, the GGR is about €1.0–€1.1bn. The drop has been in six years by about 40% Veikkaus’ market share of all gambling in Finland was at the 90% level, but now it is only about 2/3. Veikkaus has only 50% of gambling in digital channels, compared to 73% six years ago. The worst situation is in particularly competitive areas, in fixed-odds betting and online casino games, where Veikkaus’ market share is only about a third. That has happened in a situation where Finland further tightened gambling legislation from the beginning of 2022 and made it more difficult for offshore companies to operate.

The poor business results could even be justified in some way if the primary goal of reducing gambling problems had been realized. The previous nationwide gambling problem research was conducted in 2019. At that time, it was found that there had been no significant change in the overall level of gambling problems. On the other hand, the number of players suffering from serious problems had increased somewhat. After 2019, Veikkaus’ sales and GGR collapsed. Unfortunately, we will have to wait at least a year before we know how this has affected the number of gambling problems. The following nationwide research will be made next year, and the results will probably be known in early 2024. According to Veikkaus’ small-scale survey, gambling problems have decreased somewhat, but it does not seem that a tremendous change has occurred.

Veikkaus is not allowed to develop its business, and at the same time, the number of gambling problems does not seem to be developing as expected. Gambling has become more difficult for Veikkaus due to stricter responsibility requirements, e.g., mandatory identification and strict loss limits. As a result, customers have increasingly transferred their gambling to other operators. Finns’ overall gambling seems to be slightly increased after the Covid-19 pandemic, but at the same time, Veikkaus’ GGR continues to fall sharply. The new stricter monopoly legislation seems to be driving customers to offshore companies. The money flows outside of Finland, the customers are no longer under the supervision of the Finnish authorities, and the number of gambling problems does not decrease.

The situation cannot continue like this, and now it is better for everyone that the gambling system in Finland would change. That opinion was said by the CEO of Veikkaus in August when the company reported its H1/2022 result. Veikkaus, therefore, announced that it no longer considers it reasonable to continue as a monopoly company, at least in competitive gambling areas. A similar announcement by a monopoly company led to a rapid change in the gambling system in Denmark and Sweden. Judging from the comments of the political parties, the same will also happen after the parliamentary elections held in Finland in April next year.

No one yet knows what Finland’s new gambling system will be like and when it will come into force. I’ll try to help political decision-makers design the best possible model for Finland, where legislation and regulation are based on a comprehensive understanding of the gambling business. I believe that new, much better legislation will come into force in Finland within 2–4 years.

Development of Finnish gambling situation – August 2021

I have written this short analysis of the Finnihs gambling situation together with my business partner Reijo Anttila.

Market situation H1/2021

  • The Covid-19 has continued to have a negative impact on gambling activities in Veikkaus’ physical channels. Gaming arcades and slot machines have had to be partly closed.
  • Compulsory identification-based gaming of physical slot machines came into force in the decentralized slot machines in January 2021. That will significantly reduced Veikkaus’ gross gaming revenue.
  • Mandatory identification of slot machines in Veikkaus’ own gaming arcades came into force in July 2021. The foreign slot machines used by Veikkaus did not have an identification feature ready. As a result, these slot machines had to be closed in Veikkaus’ gaming arcades. Slot machines will be reopened when it is possible that customers can identify themselves in those machines. According to unofficial information, the customer’s obligation to identify himself has collapsed the gaming margin accumulated in Veikkaus’ gaming arcades.
  • Veikkaus started collective bargaining in August 2021. According to the company’s announcement, its purpose is to reduce approximately 200 jobs from the point-of-sale organization. In addition, the company is working to make organizational changes for hundreds of its other employees.
  • In September 2021, the gambling limits for digital, fast-paced gambling will be extended to include slot machine gaming at the physical point of sales. That will further reduce Veikkaus’ revenues. Until now, physical slot machines have been allowed to be played as much as customers want, but in the future, the player will have to set a limit on both daily and monthly consumption. According to the experience of the digital channel, the limits will be set tight. It is estimated that there are tens of thousands of problematic slot machine players, and playing of that group will go down a lot. It is quite possible that some of the declining gambling is likely to move to the digital gambling services of offshore operators.
  • According to information obtained from various sources, the gaming revenue of offshore companies in Finland has been growing strongly during the Covid-19 period.

Gambling in Veikkaus’ physical channel, in particular, is undergoing a considerable change. According to Veikkaus’ H1 / 2021 interim report, only 45 % of gambling took place in the physical channels, and 55 % came from digital sales. In 2019, the physical sales channel accounted for almost 60 % of total sales. At present, about 65 % of all Finnish gambling takes place on digital channels. Within a couple of years, that share will exceed 70 %.

Drafted Lottery Act 2021

  • The project to reform the Lottery Act in accordance with the Government Program was launched in January 2020, when a preparatory working group was appointed.
  • The working group completed the proposal in late 2020. Opinions on the proposal were given in early 2021.
  • The critical points of the drafted law are:
    • The law provides for payment blocking to limit the availability of offshore gambling. Blockings are targeted at gambling companies that market in violation of the Lottery Act. The law does not define what is considered illegal marketing. The regulator (the National Police Board) makes an interpretation. The regulator maintains a “blacklist” of illegally marketing gambling operators. Banks and payment service providers are required to block payment transactions to “blacklisted” gambling companies.
    • Provisions on mandatory player identification are added to the law. In the beginning, of course, this only applies to Veikkaus’ operations, but it can be considered a policy that will be valid later also in a possible licensing market situation.
    • A provision is added to the law to extend the decision prohibiting the marketing of gambling that violates the Lottery Act to natural persons. In addition, there will be the possibility of imposing an administrative penalty fee for marketing in breach of the Lottery Act.
    • According to the bill, Veikkaus will be allowed to market horse and sports betting, even though they are considered to be gambling products that can cause significant gambling problems.
    • The law specifies the provisions concerning Veikkaus’ marketing and supervision of the implementation of gambling. In addition, conditions on the placement and self-monitoring of slot machines will be added to the law.
    • The Act adds provision on the possibility for Veikkaus to establish a subsidiary engaged in business between companies (B2B) for non-gambling activities and on the conditions and restrictions concerning the subsidiary’s operation to be installed.
  • The drafted law was sent at the end of April 2021 to the EU notification process. The start of the EU process was so urgent that the opinion of the Legislative Evaluation Council was not available before the process started. A subsequent opinion of the Evaluation Council noted several shortcomings in the preparation of the law. Particular attention will be paid to the fact that the preparation work has not explored other possible options (e.g., legislation based on a licensing system). The explanatory memorandum to the Lottery Act also lacks financial calculations and impact assessments of the law to the operations of the Åland-based PAF company.
  • In July 2021, Malta issued a “detailed opinion” on the law in the context of the EU notification process. The “detailed opinion” challenges the Finnish state to justify the necessity and proportionality of the decisions. Finland has three months to give its answer and make any necessary changes. Although the measures in the law appear to be significant in order to achieve the stated goals, the result is probably that the bill will be essentially the same for consideration by parliament. According to unofficial information, Finland has already answered and apparently made only minor changes to the bill. The law is expected to be submitted to the Finnish Parliament in the coming weeks – in September 2021.
  • The probabilities of whether a proposal will go through at all, whether it will go through as it is presented, or whether it will go through modified will vary all the time. The collapse of Veikkaus’ financial result favors rolling the change in the law on a tight schedule. The outcome of the changes in the law will not significantly change the situation. So, a serious debate on the transition to a licensing system is ahead in any case.
  • According to the information, it seems certain that the current model, in which the beneficiaries’ revenue is directly linked to Veikkaus’ income, will be dismantled. A working group has been appointed to prepare for the change, which is expected to present a proposal by the end of 2021. The goal is for the change to take effect from the beginning of 2024. Breaking the direct link between the beneficiaries and Veikkaus’ income also requires an amendment to the Lotteries Act. As a result, the law will have to be reopened in either 2022 or 2023. In this context, it is theoretically possible that other significant changes could be made to the law.

Political situation

  • Political turbulence is severe. The governmental program binds government parties, but the situation is difficult due to Veikkaus’ revenues collapse. Politicians would like to support Veikkaus’ market position, but there are no ways to do so. According to current information, the Lottery Act is going to be accepted in parliament. However, there has been debate about the rationale for monopolistic gambling legislation, and MPs, also from governmental parties, have expressed differing views.
  • The connection between Veikkaus and its beneficiaries will be severed by 2024 at the latest. Before that, the state subsidy received by Veikkaus’ beneficiaries will already decrease considerably. Veikkaus’ revenues will be transferred to the state budget, from which the beneficiaries’ grants will be paid in accordance with the budget decisions made by the respective government.
  • A political debate has begun on changing the entire gambling system. Veikkaus’ market share of all Finns’ gambling will fall below 70 % in the coming years. In digital channels, Veikkaus’ market share is close to 60 %, and in the competitive gambling product areas (casino games and fixed-odds betting), it is estimated to be only about 35 %. Based on these developments, it is no longer sensible and possible to continue with a monopoly system. The question is mainly at what stage the system will be converted to license-based and what kind of multi-license system will be created.
  • It is unlikely that the next Finnish government will decide to continue with the gambling monopoly system. The next population survey on gambling problems will be conducted in 2023. It is assumed that the number of gambling problems will not decrease significantly in that survey. Reduced slot machine gambling lowers the gambling problems experienced to some extent. It is doubtful that this effect will be seen in the population survey, as the share of digital gambling has exploded in both gambling and the number of gambling problems.
  • The share of digital gaming in Finland’s total gambling will soon reach 70 %. Veikkaus’ market share of that gambling has fallen rapidly to 60 %. In certain competitive product areas, Veikkaus’ share of gambling is already at a very low level; for example, in fixed-odds sports betting, it is estimated at only about 25 %. In such a market situation, the monopoly system can no longer continue.

Lotteries’ requirements are growing – operating models must change

I have originally written this text for http://www.lotterydaily.com, and Conor Porter has partly modified the text.

A company’s mission is to make a profit for its owners. That is also the case for lotteries, although they do not fully follow the way standard business companies operate. Responsible gaming and the restrictions that arise from gaming play a significant impact. Ultimately, lotteries also strive to achieve the biggest possible income flow for their owners and beneficiaries within their operation framework.

Companies that strive for results are constantly thinking about the best ways to run their operations. The goal is to keep up with developments or even be at the forefront. It is also a requirement to do the activity as efficiently as possible. Successful companies must also be better than their competitors in the same market in at least some areas.

Back in the early 2000s, lotteries did not think as described above. The companies have mainly been state-owned or at least have a monopoly position granted by them. That has reduced the pressure of business success and, in many cases, lotteries could be described as government offices rather than successful businesses. From an economic point of view, it is clear that a monopoly company always operates less efficiently than a company involved in the competition.

Most lotteries have not sought and still do not strive to be at the forefront of development. Companies have even had difficulty keeping up reasonably with the changing world around them. However, that has not hampered operations as long as the monopoly position has remained in practice and not just on paper. Attention has been paid to the efficiency of operations, but the starting point has been, above all, saving and not optimizing operations. Nor has the aim been to be the best operator in the market, even in some areas, as quite a few lotteries have been denied competing against anyone.

Of course, the situation is not the same everywhere. As I have already stated in my previous columns, the lotteries are a very heterogeneous group. There are still many state-owned companies among lotteries that are even part of the administration and operate like government offices. On the other hand, there are very business-oriented companies in the lottery world, some of which are owned by private equity investors or are even listed companies. The operating models of the state office and the listed company are not the same.

I do not mean that all lotteries should act as standard business companies do. Instead, I mean, each lotteries’ operating models can’t be the same because their goals are so different. Each company must find the most suitable operating methods for its operating environment and goals. The situation is such that there are no one-size-fits-all solutions.

One exciting area is outsourcing. How much and what companies should do themselves and what aspects they should outsource? It is not just a question of cost efficiency, although companies too often only think about that. By outsourcing operations, a company can achieve cost savings. Yet, it is also essential to focus on what can best improve the way you do business. Outsourcing often helps simplify management.

One of the most commonly outsourced things in the gambling world is technology. Lotteries have traditionally acquired all gambling-related technology from a single supplier. Operating models have differed quite a lot between European and US lotteries, for example. European companies have mostly bought the technology, while US lotteries have outsourced the entire gaming system to technology vendors as well. IGT, Scientific Games, and Intralot have dominated this area for a long time.

However, especially for more advanced lotteries, the situation has changed significantly. The development of digitalization and the expansion of the ​​operation of lotteries have mainly contributed to this. In addition to traditional scratch cards and lottery games in the retail channel, new product areas have emerged, such as sports betting, which is increasingly played on digital channels. That has changed not only the competitive situation but also the technical requirements.

While lotteries continue to operate draw-based games and scratch cards on a monopoly basis, and some companies also have a monopoly in other gaming areas, the shift to digital channels has further tightened competition. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of other gambling companies available to consumers on the internet and mobile world. Customers have also learned to demand better products and services from lotteries.

Traditional technology suppliers have excellently mastered the actual lottery gaming systems and related point-of-sale terminals. The structure of lottery games has been very similar for decades, which is why game development has been handled in collaboration with technology suppliers. However, the digital sales channel requirements and new product areas are different compared to traditional models. That has led to more technology companies entering the market, focusing on smaller specialty areas. Some companies have focused only on systems that operate on digital channels, others only on sports game solutions, and others only on game/content production.

The level of demand for many lotteries has increased with development. Advanced lotteries, in particular, want to take advantage of the best solutions in different areas, which is why buying everything from one technology supplier is no longer a viable model. Today, gambling systems in different product areas and sales channels may all come from different providers. That has caused a significant change in the IT-architecture. Everything no longer revolves around the lottery solution. Today, more and more companies have switched to a model where PAM is at the center of everything because customer data is the same for all game verticals and distribution channels.

So does outsourcing of technology make sense anymore? That is no longer possible for advanced and versatile gambling operators, so the issue is not valid for all lotteries. But the answer is not that simple. In the lottery sector, which still operates under strict state control and offers only traditional lottery products, it may make sense to continue all IT operations to a technology company and focus not only on administration but also on sales and marketing activities. The decision is made above all on what is most important to the company and its basis to achieve the most optimal profit level.

However, it is easy to predict that while the legal monopoly in lottery games may persist for a long time to come, the digitalization of the business will sooner or later drive all lotteries into a real competitive situation. In that world, traditional operating models will no longer succeed, but companies must understand and prepare for a huge change. That does not mean, for example, pushing responsibility out of the way of doing business, but changing companies’ processes, know-how, and management.

Does the proposed Finnish gambling legislation make sense or not?

I have written this column for http://www.lotterydaily.com (published February, 1st), and Conor Porter has partly modified the text.

The Ministry of the Interior Affairs has published a proposal for Finland’s new gambling legislation early in January.

The preparatory work done by the officials lasted for almost one year. I think that they did a great job, as Covid-19 certainly made the process significantly more complicated and, nevertheless, the work was done on schedule. The outcome of the work was also excellent given the assignment of the task. Officials are not responsible for the fact that the political mandate of the work was anything but sensible.

The aim of Finland’s current Government Program is to secure Veikkaus’ monopoly and operating conditions. In addition to this, the objective is to combat gambling problems and to channel gambling to Veikkaus’ responsible and controlled offering.

The Government Program also states that other gambling companies’ marketing will be addressed, and ways will be sought to restrict gambling to other gambling operators’ sites.

Based on the gambling policy guidelines mentioned above set out in the Government Program, the Ministry of the Interior Affairs set up a working group in early 2020 to prepare the guidelines for Finland’s new gambling legislation. The starting point for the legal reform was that the Finnish gambling system would continue to be based on a monopoly system.

Therefore, the working group did not have the opportunity to carry out such proper preparatory work as analyzed and sought the best possible solution as a basis for the Finnish gambling system. The mandate stated unequivocally that the preparation should be based on a monopoly model. Therefore, well-functioning licence-based models in other countries were not even studied.

I have stated on many occasions that I am always, in principle, objected to monopolies. On the other hand, during my Veikkaus-years, I’ve understood that there are business areas where competition should be limited. Gambling is definitely an activity that states must regulate because of potential problems.

However, this does not mean that a monopoly is automatically the best solution for restricting operations. It is lousy preparation if not all possible sensible alternatives are analyzed, but one of the essential things is decided without examining them. On what grounds can the Finnish Government claim that, in preparing the matter, it has promoted the interests of its citizens in the best possible way by prohibiting the examination of possible better alternatives?

As a whole, the proposal for new gambling legislation is a huge disappointment. Maybe I expected too much when I hoped to see things change. Now I feel that just a few changes are promised, and they are taking some things in the wrong direction. Hopefully, even concerning the gambling problems, there are developments in the right direction. But I am not sure about it.

The number of gambling problems in Finland has changed incomprehensibly little during the 21st century compared to the fact that gambling has increased significantly. The share of Finns suffering from gambling problems has been at the level of about 3% from year to year.

Instead, the number of people suffering from serious gambling problems has increased somewhat, and I hope that the new legislation will help this unfortunate development. I will return to this topic shortly after commenting on the policies made on physical slot machines.

The Finnish gambling policy’s core problem has been the discrepancy between business profit expectations and the responsibility requirements set at the same time. The Finnish state has not been able to decide which issue it considers more important. Therefore Veikkaus, the monopoly operator, has had challenges in understanding what the owner wants from it.

Revenue expectations have been high, but at the same time, instruments to respond to competition have not been allowed to be used. It now seems evident that responsibility has gained and is gaining more weight. On the positive side, the choice has finally been made, but I think it is far too late and no longer enough to save the situation. Now there is a significant risk that the gambling problems will not develop in the desired direction. At the same time, gambling profits will collapse, and above all, Veikkaus will permanently lose its future competitiveness.

Mandatory identification for gambling is coming, which is now introduced a few weeks ago in physical slot machines. The requirement to register for other gambling products will take effect over a few years. It is a good reform in terms of responsible gambling, but it is also a reform that will significantly impact the decrease in gambling revenue. The potential positive impact of identified gambling on business is based on the utilization of customer data.

However, it seems that Veikkaus’ ability to use data as a modern business company will be restricted or even denied. This shows that decision-makers have no understanding of what can be done with customer data. Using it is not automatically the same thing as adding gambling problems. It seems that the Finnish state no longer even wants Veikkaus to operate a profitable business anymore, but at most just put its products on offer, as was the case in the 1980s. I’m sorry on behalf of Veikkaus’ knowledgeable and skillful employees because they do not get to do the job properly.

There have been significant changes in slot machine operations over the past year. Veikkaus voluntarily decided to reduce the number of those machines a lot. However, the number of slot machine locations did not decrease in almost the same proportion. The change that has now come into force, making slot machine play only possible for registered customers, is a good thing. The explanatory memorandum to the new law states that slot machines’ placement should aim for solutions that minimize the gambling problems.

However, many would like to see slot machines removed from public open spaces, but that is not the case. I have never understood why slot machines can be kept in entirely open spaces in Finland. Slot machines are an integral part of gambling, but I think the machines’ correct location would be mainly in arcades and other age-restricted areas, following the Danish model. However, this is not the case in Finland, even after the new gambling legislation.

One of the most positive reforms of the proposed legislation is the clarification of the marketing of gambling. The premise is that marketing should be moderate and channel gambling to games that don’t cause so many problems. The weakness of the current legislation in force has been the definition of marketing and product information provision.

Several years ago, I was among those who planned the current gambling marketing policies, and I am ready to raise my hand and admit a mistake (as in basketball). I am glad that from the new legislation, the possibility to share product information is removed. Appropriate legislation should contain as few interpretations as possible, and the situation now seems to be improving.

The introduction of payment blocking will cause my blood pressure to rise. It could be the best solution for everyone, that I advise you to read a blog written by Aki Pyysing on the subject (https://www.sijoitustieto.fi/sijoitusartikkelit/viisikko-blokkaa-pelkasta-rajoittamisen-ilosta – unfortunately only in Finnish). However, it is enough to say that this reform makes no sense.

The reform’s economic impact is entirely non-existent, and this will not reduce gambling problems, so why is such nonsense done? In light of Norway’s experience, the blockings may restrict banks and major payment companies’ activities. Still, they will be replaced very soon by new service providers beyond the control.

Personally, the most exciting reform proposal is the opportunity for Veikkaus, or its subsidiary, to start a new type of business. I was the CEO of that kind of subsidiary, Veikkaus Solutions Ltd, and most recently, my job in Veikkaus was to prepare for re-starting a new business. Now it seems that Veikkaus would again have the opportunity to establish a subsidiary for non-gambling activities. The intention is for the subsidiary to provide gambling products and services to other operators and not engage in consumer gambling activities.

This is an excellent thing in the long run. Sales contracts for gambling products and services today are based almost exclusively on the revenue share model. The compensation received by the selling company is based on how much the customers of the buying company end up buying those products.

Hopefully, the Finnish authorities will not interpret such sales for gambling purposes. A massive opportunity for Veikkaus, which is still one of the best lotteries globally, would be to start international B2C gambling operations. Selling gambling products directly to customers in other countries would generate significantly more revenue than trading among gambling companies. However, B2C operations are not possible under the Finnish monopoly system. It would have been one additional primary reason for moving to a license-based system.

In conclusion, the answer to my question in the title is NOT. This reform, as a whole, makes no sense. I consider it a much better option to omit this proposed change altogether and move on to the licence-based system’s preparation. The rationale for the licence-based model would be worth its own separate column.

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM NORWAY’S GAMBLING MONOPOLY?

I have written this blog for LotteryDaily.com and they published it last week. This text is partly modified by Chris Murphy.

The Nordic countries of Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden have quite similar systems and legislation in many areas. That has been the case also in gambling business until the beginning of 2010’s when Denmark decided to move from a monopoly to a license-based system in 2011. 

Sweden decided to follow that from the beginning of 2019. Finland and Norway still have gambling monopolies in all gambling areas, and they are by the way the only European countries that still have that kind of legislative situation. 

It begs the question; why are those well-developed, innovative countries still trying to keep a monopoly-based system? Furthermore, is there anything we could learn from them? 

For the purposes of this particular column I’ll concentrate solely on Norway and return to covering developments in my home country after some months. As you know, in practice all European countries have a monopoly-based system in lottery games but not in sports betting. And most countries have never even had a monopoly in the casino business. But Norway has a monopoly in all gambling areas and physical casinos are totally forbidden. 

The question is, has that kind of model worked well? The size of gambling business in Norway is big. There are about 5.4 million inhabitants in the country and the total GGR of gambling business in 2019 was M€1.244. Almost half of GGR came from digital channels. 

Gambling acceptable among Norwegians

Although there is a monopoly, the share of offshore operators is big – according to H2GC it is 27%. Gambling is common and acceptable among Norwegians. According to surveys almost 2/3 of adults used to play some gambling products at least once a year.

The previous government was keen on liberalization and it seriously investigated a number of other possible legislative models for the Norwegian gambling business. In 2015 it opened up the lottery business by a fraction by issuing supplementary lottery licenses for five small operators. Those licenses are still valid, but the operational possibilities are extremely limited. 

It seemed that Norway would move to a license-based system at the same time as Sweden, but in summer 2017 the government decided to continue the monopoly system. The system is not as the monopoly we have in Finland because there are two operators, Norsk Tipping and Rikstoto, and small lotteries plus bingo halls, but in principle it is still a monopoly.

Norway has run and controlled monopoly-based gambling seriously. The prevention of gambling problems has been the main purpose, relegating profit to just a secondary element. The country has enough money anyhow and there has been no need to maximize gambling revenues at all. 

There are lots of restrictions for gambling in Norway. Mandatory identification in order to gamble has been in existence for many years and there are tight gambling/loss limits in the gambling business run by the state-owned Norsk Tipping. Norway had also tried to restrict gambling offshore with blocks in place for 10 years. 

Gambling offshore is still legal in Norway, but operators don’t have licenses to offer their services in the country and are prevented from marketing their products. To compound matters, it has become difficult to move money to those companies and get winnings back from them. 

However, preventing Norwegian players from gambling offshore has been difficult to achieve because they have become accustomed to playing with those operators. According to customer surveys many Norwegians are unaware that companies like Unibet and Betsson don’t have licenses to operate in Norway. That might explain why 27 % of gambling is still going abroad despite the official monopoly system.

I think, though, that Norway is the best example of how a country should organize its gambling business should it be monopoly-based. Its system is not an ideal one, because there is no reason to have those minor lotteries and probably they should consider merging Norsk Tipping and horse betting operator Rikstoto. 

But there are lots of good things. The state has allowed Norsk Tipping to develop its own business, enabling the state-owned lottery company to offer good products and service to its customers. It is important, however, to have the right channels in place, otherwise the legitimacy of the monopoly system will disappear. 

Norway has now introduced even lower loss limits for gambling. That has and will continue to affect the profitability of Norsk Tipping for sure. The same kind of limits are expected to be applied to horse betting too from the beginning of 2022 and that will greatly impact the GGR of Rikstoto. 

More laws proposed

Consequently, if Norway can’t better control offshore gambling there will be an inevitable migration of players in that direction. The current government knows that and has proposed more laws, for example a restriction of gambling ads on satellite channels which will limit the business of offshore companies. At the moment it seems that tighter payment blocks have managed to reduce offshore gambling a little, but according to estimates it is just a temporary remedy.

To reiterate, the main purpose of the monopoly system is to prevent gambling problems. Norway has tried to do that for a long time. Among other measures, they prohibited the huge slot machines business that was operating 15 to 20 years ago, because most gambling problems were caused by those machines. 

It is strange that although Norway has put lots of effort into the reduction of problem gambling, the results are not so good. The University of Bergen has undertaken significant new research on Norway’s gambling problems. It found that the incidence of problem gambling has increased compared to the situation in 2015. There are 3.1 % of people suffering from gambling problems (2.3 % in 2015) and 1.4% are experiencing serious problems (0.9 % in 2015). 

The number of gambling problems is now at the same level as it was before the ban on the slot machine business. The structure of gambling problems has also changed. Now almost half of the problems are coming from digital casino games. Nowadays younger customers are suffering from gambling problems than before. There are different measurement methods of gambling problems in different countries, but despite that it is obvious that the number of gambling problems is at a higher level than it is in Denmark and Sweden where they no longer have a monopoly.

Norway has strongly and consistently tried to control the social and economic disadvantages of gambling with a monopoly. It is even prepared to decrease profit levels if that would help to reduce the number of problem gamblers. I would like to award them “10 points” for that. 

Unfortunately, results show that it has still not succeeded very well. There will be more restrictions for offshore operations, but it is unclear if they will work or not. I believe that state control and regulation will always be behind business development and that’s why there is no way to totally prevent offshore gambling anymore. 

Might it be possible that the monopoly system is no longer the best tool to prevent gambling problems in the current digitalized world?

Given that a monopoly has not succeeded in combating Norway’s gambling problems, it is unlikely these measures will work in any other European country. In Norway and also here in Finland we will have a discussion sooner or later about gambling monopolies. The states must find the best balance to prevent gambling problems and offer customers the best products possible. That leaves one final question; does the monopoly system still offer the best way to achieve that?

THE FINNISH GAMBLING MONOPOLY – TO HAVE OR NOT TO HAVE IT?

I’m still on my summer holiday and try to avoid to do too much work but now it’s almost impossible to avoid that. There is the most active discussion about the Finnish gambling system going on and I believe that I understand very well what it is about. I should mention once again that all opinions are my own ones and my company Veikkaus has nothing to do with this blog.

We got new government about two months ago and I gave my estimations what that will mean for the Finnish gambling policy and system. I believed that the importance of responsible gaming will increase, and the current monopoly-based system will stay until the end of 4 years period of the new government. I still believe on that but now the probability of system change has become a little bit higher. Our Prime Minister Antti Rinne has said that Finland should make deep analyze about other possibilities too.

There are two main areas which have caused lots of discussion. The first one has been those 18000 slot machines which Veikkaus has all over the country in shops, cafeterias and gasoline stations. The second item has been ads where Veikkaus has given too positive feeling of gambling. It’s quite obvious that there have been too big mistakes in those ads where for example “therapist” has encouraged “patient” to make some horse betting. But are those mistakes so serious ones that due to them we should discuss about the gambling system? Are those mistakes sign of something bigger problem which we have?

The new Veikkaus is in bad situation. The company is 100 % owned by the Finnish State. It’s obvious that management should follow the guidelines which owner will give but has it been clear what the owner is willing to have? The operational profit from Veikkaus to the state has been over 1 billion euros a year and gambling tax has been about 200 million a year. The Finnish State has got from Veikkaus totally about 1,2 B€ which is over 2 % of the state budget. So, we are talking about the huge financial issue. But as you know, the fiscal revenue can’t be the official reason for gambling monopoly. The only acceptable reason for monopoly system could be prevention of social problems like crime and problem gambling. The Finnish State has decided that monopoly is the best way to prevent those gambling problems. But would it be possible to maintain that revenue level and at the same time prevent problems?

The Finnish State should decide which is the primary goal of Veikkaus – money or responsible gaming. If they will select responsible gaming, it will mean that they should accept that the revenue level will go down quite a lot. I think that it would be quite easy to increase responsibility if we don’t have to care about the profit at all. But Veikkaus doesn’t have monopoly anymore in real life and our regulators don’t have tools to regulate those offshore companies which have already quite big market share in online gambling business in Finland (their GGR from Finland is about 300 M€). If Veikkaus will increase the responsible level and regulator can’t control those unregulated companies the gambling revenue will go outside the Finnish borders and gambling problems won’t decrease. If the Finnish State will select profit as a main goal, it will mean the end of monopoly and we’ll do the same what has happened for example in Denmark and Sweden.

I would say that the current situation is strange where Veikkaus is in the middle and ”shots” are coming from socially responsible bodies which are looking for much more responsible gaming actions and require Veikkaus to stop business development and marketing. At the same time ”shots” are also coming from total other side from more business-oriented bodies who would like to break monopoly-based system and promote offshore gambling companies. It is almost fun to follow that kind of discussion where those two totally opposite bodies have found the common enemy. I would say that it would be similar case when in politics extreme right and extreme left will find common enemy.

The new government decided just two months ago what kind of gambling policy they will follow. Despite of that our Prime Minister Antti Rinne said few days ago that they will consider that policy again, but it should be based on facts and deep understanding of gambling business. Quite many EU countries have moved from monopoly system to license-based system and we have lots of bench marking information from those changes. I think that we could utilize the experiences from France, Denmark and Sweden and could estimate what that kind of gambling systems would mean here in Finland from business and responsible gaming point of views. I have been surprised that there is not so much information about responsible gaming results from those other countries – it even seems that they haven’t care about that so much when they have changed their systems. As far as I know they didn’t make any problem gambling research in Denmark before they moved to the license system.

I’m not saying that it’s impossible to take care profit and responsible gaming at the same time but it’s very difficult to do. I’m saying that decision makers should know what they are looking for and what those changes might mean. As an economist I would say that monopoly as such will decrease the business activities. So, if Finland will follow the Swedish way, it would mean that at least that gambling activities will increase and we’ll have more marketing actions. But at the same time our regulators could control all those current unregulated offshore companies which are nowadays out of their scope and that would be positive thing. I don’t know what will happen here in Finland, but I know that we’ll interesting time ahead.