Finland’s New Gambling Market Takes Shape – But the Real Test Will Be in the Execution

Finland’s transition from a gambling monopoly to a licensing system is moving from legislation to implementation. With the new market scheduled to open on 1 July 2027, operators, suppliers and regulators are now facing a much more practical question: will the rules create a licensed market that is attractive enough for both companies and Finnish players?

That question dominated the Finland’s Waiting: The Start of a New European Market panel at SBC Summit in Lisbon.

Moderated by Jari Vähänen, Co-Founder and Partner at The Finnish Gambling Consultants, the discussion brought together Antti Koivula, Chief Compliance Officer at Hippos ATG; Sverker Skogberg, Senior Vice President, Public Affairs at Paf; Ivana Pejic, Head of Compliance at Betsson Europe; Brian Forth, Commercial Director at Finnplay; and Emil Nilsson, Head of Legal & Compliance at NordPlay Group.

The overall assessment of Finland’s new gambling framework was relatively positive. The concerns were elsewhere: technical details are still missing, marketing rules leave room for interpretation, affiliates have been excluded, and the effectiveness of the future regulator will depend heavily on how it communicates with the industry and tackles the unlicensed market.

And beyond regulation, another message came through clearly: succeeding in Finland will require more than simply importing a strategy that worked in Sweden or Denmark.

A commercially attractive market

Finland is already a mature gambling market, even before the licensing system formally opens.

Vähänen highlighted the scale of existing gambling activity and the substantial share already captured by operators outside the monopoly system, particularly in online casino and fixed-odds sports betting.

This helps explain the strong commercial interest in the new licensing regime.

The opportunity is therefore not about creating an online gambling market from scratch. It is about bringing a substantial existing market into a regulated system – and convincing Finnish consumers that the licensed offering is competitive enough to keep them there.

That makes channelisation one of the fundamental measures of whether the reform succeeds.

The framework is largely welcomed – implementation is the concern

Several panellists described the legislation as a reasonable compromise.

Skogberg characterised the overall package as fairly balanced, although Paf sees parts of the marketing framework as potentially too liberal. Other panellists similarly noted that compromises are inevitable when a market moves from monopoly to licensing.

There was also little expectation that the scheduled 1 July 2027 opening would move.

But agreement on the general framework does not mean the industry has all the answers it needs.

Marketing regulation was one recurring concern. The rules will allow significant visibility through mass media while restricting some established digital customer-acquisition methods, including affiliates.

The exclusion of affiliates attracted particular criticism.

The argument was not that affiliate marketing is without problems, but that excluding compliant affiliates could remove a legitimate customer-acquisition channel while doing little to prevent less responsible actors from continuing to target Finnish consumers from outside the licensed system.

The larger question, however, is how the regulator will interpret and enforce the legislation in practice.

Technical uncertainty is becoming a timetable problem

For technology providers and operators building their Finnish platforms, time is becoming increasingly important.

Finnplay’s Brian Forth pointed out that technical development cannot wait until shortly before launch.

Sites will need to be ready for auditing well before July 2027. That means operators and platform suppliers need sufficient time to translate regulatory requirements into development specifications, build the required functionality, test it and prepare for certification.

Yet important technical details remain unresolved.

For marketing teams, some ambiguity can potentially be managed closer to launch. Software development works differently.

“We need to know by end of year what’s required because we have to have time to build it,” Forth said during the discussion.

His concern was echoed by the operator side of the panel: technical teams are already asking detailed questions that compliance departments cannot necessarily answer because the final requirements do not yet exist.

The industry may have a reasonable idea of what is coming, but assumptions are a poor foundation for a development roadmap.

What kind of regulator will Finland have?

One of the most consequential questions raised in Lisbon was not about the wording of the Gambling Act at all.

It was about regulatory culture.

The panel repeatedly contrasted different European approaches to the relationship between regulators and licensed operators. Denmark was cited as an example of a market where constructive dialogue between regulator and industry can contribute to a functioning licensed ecosystem.

The hope expressed by several panellists was that Finland’s new regulator will adopt a similarly communicative approach.

That dialogue matters because no legislation can provide an explicit answer to every commercial, technical or marketing question.

Operators will inevitably have to make judgement calls, particularly around what constitutes moderate and compliant marketing. A regulator willing to provide guidance and discuss practical implications can reduce uncertainty without constantly rewriting legislation.

Predictability was another important theme.

Forth noted that operators entering regulated markets effectively accept a trade-off: they pay taxes and comply with stricter rules, but in return they need a reasonably predictable business environment and meaningful action against illegal competition.

Constant changes to taxation, technical requirements or marketing regulation can make long-term investment significantly harder.

You cannot simply copy Sweden or Denmark

Regulation, however, is only half of the Finnish market-entry equation.

Vähänen challenged the panel to consider something international operators can easily underestimate: Finland is not simply another Nordic market.

Forth, a Canadian who has lived in Finland for around two decades, argued that brands need to understand the country's cultural characteristics.

Finnish consumers, he suggested, are unlikely to respond particularly well to marketing centred on conspicuous wealth, glamour and “bling”. Local relevance, understatement and a distinctly Finnish sense of humour may prove considerably more effective.

“You need to feel like you're part of the culture,” he said.

That does not mean Finland is completely different from its Nordic neighbours.

Nilsson stressed the similarities between highly digital Nordic markets. Finnish consumers expect registration, KYC, payments and the platform itself to work seamlessly.

In that environment, the product is not simply the games catalogue.

The product is the entire customer journey.

A player encountering friction when registering or depositing does not necessarily complain. The competitor is only a couple of clicks away.

This produced one of the more interesting disagreements of the panel: what will ultimately matter more in Finland – marketing or product?

One view was that strong marketing and sufficient media investment will be decisive in a market where mass-media advertising remains important.

The opposing view was straightforward: marketing can bring a customer to the door, but if the door does not open, the customer is gone.

In reality, operators entering Finland are likely to need both.

International brand recognition does not automatically equal Finnish trust

Another warning for international operators was that being a large global gambling brand does not automatically translate into a strong Finnish position.

Finland enters the licensing era with an unusual competitive structure.

Veikkaus already has an enormous domestic customer base and decades of brand recognition. Some offshore operators also enter the regulated era with significant existing Finnish customer relationships. Other companies will effectively start from zero.

The panel acknowledged that this does not create an entirely level starting point.

There was disagreement over how much that should matter now that the framework has been decided.

One position was that companies without an existing database face a substantial competitive disadvantage. Another was more pragmatic: transitions from monopoly systems inevitably create different starting positions, and operators now need to focus on competing under the rules that exist.

For new entrants, the implication is nevertheless clear.

International scale alone will not be enough. Trust will have to be built locally.

Sport may provide one route, particularly through culturally important properties such as ice hockey, skiing and Finnish sporting partnerships. But Forth also pointed to Finland's more eccentric cultural traditions – from wife carrying and swamp football to the Air Guitar World Championships – as examples of the humour and self-awareness that brands can tap into when trying to sound genuinely Finnish rather than simply translated into Finnish.

Localisation, in other words, is not the same thing as language localisation.

The black market will be the ultimate test

All these issues eventually return to channelisation.

A regulated market can impose strong consumer-protection measures, responsible gambling obligations and technical standards on licensed companies. But those measures only achieve their full purpose if consumers actually choose licensed operators.

The panel therefore warned against seeing enforcement as the regulator's only tool against the black market.

A successful system requires several elements working simultaneously: an attractive licensed product, workable taxation and regulation, effective enforcement and cooperation from the wider gambling ecosystem.

Payment providers, banks, game suppliers and other B2B companies were all identified as potentially important parts of that equation.

Payment blocking and IP blocking can form part of enforcement, but no single measure will eliminate unlicensed competition.

The B2B licensing framework was broadly viewed as a step in the right direction, particularly because suppliers can influence whether unlicensed operators have access to the same technology and content as regulated companies.

But again, it is only one tool.

If regulatory restrictions make the licensed product materially less attractive than the unlicensed alternative, enforcement alone may struggle to deliver the desired channelisation rate.

Even apparently small product requirements can therefore have consequences. The panel used mandatory spin times as one example of a restriction that consumers may experience very differently from policymakers. If the regulated product feels significantly less attractive, some players may simply look elsewhere.

Finland has entered the execution phase

Perhaps the most important conclusion from Lisbon was that the debate around Finland is changing.

For years, the industry discussed whether Finland would abandon its gambling monopoly and what the legislation might eventually contain.

Those questions are largely behind us.

The market now has a launch date, a legislative framework and operators preparing to compete.

The next phase is about execution.

Can the remaining technical requirements be delivered early enough for operators and suppliers to build compliant products? Will marketing rules be interpreted consistently? Will the regulator maintain an open dialogue with the industry? Can licensed operators offer products attractive enough to achieve strong channelisation? And will international brands understand Finland well enough to compete with companies that already have deep relationships with Finnish consumers?

The opportunity is substantial. But Finland will not be a market where simply obtaining a licence guarantees success.

The companies that understand both sides of the equation – the regulatory architecture and the Finnish consumer – will be considerably better prepared for 1 July 2027.