In the Spotlight: Sverker Skogberg

The bridge builder who wants the industry to speak a clearer language about responsibility, regulation, and the future

Sverker Skogberg has spent the last 11 years at Paf working at the intersection of policy, society, and the everyday realities of the industry. His title is Public Affairs, but the way he describes the work is more revealing.

“My intention is to be Paf’s bridge builder,” he says.

It is not a slogan. It is a practical job description for someone who operates in three languages, across shifting political realities, and in a sector where trust is fragile by default. On any given day, Skogberg moves between regulators, decision makers, internal stakeholders, legal teams, responsible gaming specialists, and communications. The common denominator is translation, not only between Swedish, Finnish and English, but between worlds.

From defensive lobbying to proactive dialogue

When Skogberg joined Paf, the tone of industry advocacy in Finland was cautious and defensive. Paf has a specific legal position and a Swedish speaking identity rooted in Åland. For years, the strategy was to avoid unnecessary noise and to protect the right to operate within the existing framework.

That has changed.

“Back then, the lobbying role was more defensive. Now it has become proactive,” he says. “We can participate early, bring initiatives, and be part of shaping solutions.”

He points to a clear turning point. When the Finnish debate started moving decisively toward a licensing model, and especially after 2022 when even Veikkaus publicly supported building a license system, the conversation opened up. Suddenly, Paf was not just defending its existence. It was expected to contribute.

The shift has also been visible on stages. Paf has become a regular voice in panels, debates, and CEO discussions, including the Finnish iGaming conference, where Skogberg notes the company has consistently shown up with leadership representation.

“We’re proud of that. We have brought a delegation every year. We want to be in the discussion.”

The moment responsibility became personal

Skogberg came to gambling from aviation. His assumption at the time was blunt.

“I thought responsible gaming didn’t really exist in this industry,” he admits. “That was my primitive first thought.”

What changed his mind was not corporate messaging, but exposure to real human impact. He recalls being in Almedalen in Visby and hearing a story from someone whose mother had gambling problems. The room went quiet. The kind of quiet that rearranges your priorities.

“It made the problem real,” he says. “The harm is big. But it also means the industry has a shared responsibility to improve.”

Today he believes responsibility has become a buzzword across the sector, and he is careful about that. It is easy to talk about responsibility. It is harder to prove it with decisions that cost revenue.

Changing the language of gambling

If there is one thing Skogberg wants the industry to tackle more directly, it is how gambling is framed in public conversation. He is motivated by a simple idea: move the narrative away from danger and stigma, and toward regulated entertainment with actual player protection.

He has little patience for the language that paints the entire sector as inherently shady.

“I would like people to stop using words like ‘gambling’ (uhkapeli/hasardspel) in that old sense, the kind of words that carry a strange tone,” he says. “It matters how we talk about this.”

His point is not semantic. It is strategic. If the public vocabulary is built around suspicion, every policy debate starts from distrust. If the vocabulary is built around entertainment under responbsibility you can still regulate firmly, but in a realistic way.   

Limits, segments, and the courage to say no

At Paf, responsibility is not presented as a marketing layer. Skogberg returns again and again to the company’s loss limits and what he calls the “segment table,” a way of showing how limits are tightened step by step across customer groups.

The headline is concrete. Paf is adjusting its annual loss limit from 16,000 euros to 15,000 euros, a decision made as part of a long term approach.

“We aim to adjust it once per year,” he says. “The goal is to find a level we consider reasonable.”

He is critical of proposals that try to micromanage daily behaviour through rigid daily caps, arguing that such controls risk breaking the product in ways that push people elsewhere.

His core principle is clear. The industry can aim for strong consumer protection without creating a system that simply exports customers to the black market.

And there is another line Paf draws that he believes defines its identity.

“We don’t want blood money,” he says. “We don’t want the high rollers.”

It is a rare position in an industry where a small share of customers traditionally drive a large share of revenue. Skogberg partly understands the counterargument, why stop people who can afford it. But he sees it as a structural choice that must be made openly. Paf has chosen to walk away from that kind of income.

A market opening, and the marketing paradox

Finland’s move toward a licensing model is often framed as modernisation. Skogberg agrees that legal clarity is a benefit, but he is uneasy about one expected side effect.

“We are strongly critical of how liberal marketing is becoming,” he says.

He points to Holland and Sweden as a cautionary reference point. Once marketing competition accelerates, operators face pressure to spend heavily just to maintain position. Paf expects that if it enters the system, it cannot sit out the marketing war entirely.

“We can’t just lie down and die,” he says. “But it will cost a lot, and profits will likely decrease in the first years.”

He hopes the long game will reward a balanced model where operators can be profitable while keeping gambling harm at a manageable level. But the path there is not automatic. It requires good supervision, credible enforcement, and regulation that understands unintended consequences.

The risk that keeps him up at night

Ask Skogberg what worries him most, and he moves quickly to channelisation and the black market.

“Do decision makers understand how much black market activity is out there, waiting?” he asks.

In theory, a licensing model is meant to bring more play into the regulated space. In practice, he believes regulation can overshoot and push customers to unlicensed sites, especially as technology evolves faster than policy.

“Technology goes before politics,” he says. “You can never seal it completely. The pirates always find new ways.”

He also flags competitive pressure from neighbouring countries. If jurisdictions like Estonia lower gambling taxation to attract operators, the economic incentive structure changes and channelisation will be weak.

The regulator relationship that will define success

Skogberg is watching one factor more than any other: how well the new supervisory authority will function in practice. Structures on paper are not enough. The system needs competent people, stable leadership, and above all, a communication culture that allows operators to ask practical questions and receive practical answers.

For him, the difference between a workable regime and a dysfunctional one often comes down to everyday dialogue. If oversight becomes purely formalistic, operators will learn to play defence and innovation will move elsewhere. If the authority is accessible and consistent, it becomes possible to solve issues early, before they escalate into enforcement battles or public crises.

That is the model he hopes gambling supervision will follow: clear rules, predictable interpretation, and an open channel for practical guidance. Not soft regulation, but functional regulation.

PR as credibility, not decoration

Skogberg does not treat PR as a separate layer. For him, legitimacy is built through consistency between message and behaviour. He cites Paf’s cooperation with Kimi Räikkönen as an example, not because it was flashy, but because the credibility came from authenticity.

“He chose us. It wasn’t planted PR,” Skogberg says, describing how Räikkönen expressed his own blunt reasons in his own style.

The deeper point is that public trust is not won by perfect scripts. It is won by decisions that can withstand scrutiny, and by being, as Skogberg puts it, “brutally honest.”

What he wants people to understand about Paf

After years of regulation debates and public scepticism, Skogberg still comes back to one wish. He wants people inside and outside the industry to understand that Paf is not trying to be the loudest actor, but it is trying to be a different kind of actor.

“We are a bit unusual,” he says. “We are not like the others.”

He wants Paf to be seen as interesting, and as credible, not self righteous. A company that can compete in a more open market, while continuing to argue for limits, transparency, and long term trust.

In an industry that often talks in numbers, Skogberg’s contribution is more human. He is trying to make space for a future oriented discussion that is not built on denial or panic, but on realism.

The future will be regulated. The future will be debated. The future will be competitive. His bet is that it can also be more responsible, if the industry is willing to build bridges early, and to cross them together.

 Sverker Skogberg, Paf