Can you give us an overview of the Finnish licensing system and the discussion surrounding it?
It’s a very hot topic here right now; the new thing is that it was a bit of a surprise when Veikkaus came out at the end of August and said they think it is worth seriously considering the licence system for Finland in the future, which is something they have not said before. As you can imagine, this has launched a lively discussion, and is likely to be debated in Parliament before the up-and-coming elections in April. Officially, you still have the Lottery Act, the old one, which they made some amendments to. The Gallup leader and the Coalition Party have come out now saying they want to have speedy research about a possible licence system – so, it has really moved forward.
In terms of the discussions around the licensing system during the next six months before the election, where do you want to see it go?
We are hoping they will introduce tough regulations with an even playing field for everybody; however, responsible gaming should still be the focus of everything – which is connected to our actions involving loss limits. The move we made there was not for any specific market, but for everywhere. From Paf’s side, we’d like to see tough regulation, while making sure that player protection – the initial reason for having the monopoly – should still be the number one reason for helping a good functioning licence system. We’d also like to see national deposit limits; we are a strong believer that it would be a significant tool for player protection. You already have a discussion here which involves looking at other countries and seeing which model would fit Finland best.
How big is the illegal operating market in Finland, and would they be dealt with by the kind of restrictions you’re asking for?
If you look at what’s happened in Sweden as an example, they don’t have to be here on an illegal basis; all are welcome to pay tax and be a part of the system and I hope the industry hopes for the same kind of solution. But it will be good to see if everybody can fulfil their requirements, and I think it would be fair if Veikkaus will have fair regulation, too – because until now they have not had the chance to compete on the same conditions as everybody else due to
the monopoly regulation. That is the main point for us: everybody should have the same chance in the market.
How long has the monopoly been in place now?
Well, I don’t remember the exact number of years, but the Lottery Act was changed in 2017. When the three big companies in Finland first merged into Veikkaus, as a result the monopoly strengthened, which was good for player protection. But now the big problem is their online market share is decreasing all the time – which Veikkaus themselves have said previously. That’s why it is better to regulate. We have seen it ourselves, Veikkaus and Paf’s market share is shrinking not growing; so we also have an interest in seeing proper regulation.
Which country do you look at as having the most ideal regulation model you’d like Finland to adopt?
That’s a tricky question, and something that everybody is thinking about at the moment. I think it would be a mix with a good Nordic touch – looking at the Danish and Swedish model, there are good regulations you can pick parts from. It is important Finland has that freedom, not a copy-paste from any other markets. We have seen things in places like Sweden that are functioning very well; we have been there for four years now, but we also see things that should have been corrected from the start – for instance, B2B licences. Finland has a unique opportunity to learn from the mistakes made in other places and pick some of the good parts.
Why did you implement your €20,000 ($19,600) loss limit, because you didn’t have to?
Well, we do a lot of things we don’t have to. We want to try and be a leader in that respect. We’re not always loved for it, because you can always ask the question ‘are you ready to say no to some of your profit?’ I think in the long run the industry can agree on certain rules, even national loss limits and standards which would be good for everybody. (For more on Paf’s loss limits, see Skogberg’s Guest Interview in Week 40 of GI Friday)
