Nordic Markets Split on Gambling Reform Strategies
A few weeks ago, I attended Eventus’ Scandinavia and Nordic Gaming Show, though based on the conversations, it could easily have been renamed the Finland Gaming Show. I wasn’t present for every session (for reasons I’ll explain later), but what I did hear left me thinking long after I walked out of the venue.
Depending on whom you ask, Scandinavia may include Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland. What stood out immediately was how differently these countries tackle the same regulatory challenges. Norway continues to defend its monopoly structure. Iceland still lacks a coherent legal framework. Sweden and Denmark rely on licensing regimes, while Finland prepares to open its market firmly insisting it will do so on its own terms.
The Black Market Ignores Borders
Complex compliance demands, strict advertising rules and limited tools to curb offshore activity dominate the region. Yet the black market, the very issue regulators want to control, operates freely across borders. Players will always find alternatives, especially if the legal product is uncompetitive. If regulated operators face high friction or unattractive conditions, they simply relocate offshore. Enforcement against these actors remains slow, fragmented and often ineffective.
Welcome to “Skandinarnia”
On Friday, I left the conference early to catch a show by the Norwegian group Undergrunn. One of their songs, Skandinarnia, has nothing to do with gaming, but it felt oddly fitting. In this imaginary world, Scandinavians pride themselves on doing everything “their own way”, convinced that their approach is superior. That same mindset was present at the conference as a belief that the Nordic model is exceptional, even when evidence suggests otherwise.
Regulation Should Protect Players — Not Maintain an Illusion
Ultimately, players choose where to gamble. Regulation exists to safeguard them, not to nurture a false sense of control. Yes, gambling contributes to public finances, but tax revenue should follow sound regulatory design not override it.
Shutting one door only pushes players through another. This industry evolves rapidly and even legacy monopolies now rely on advanced technology. The same applies to offshore operators. The idea that bonus caps, affiliate restrictions, or ad bans can eliminate competition is fantasy, a type of regulatory fairytale firmly rooted in “Skandinarnia”.
A Strong Market Needs a Competitive Product
You cannot improve channelization without offering a product that players actually prefer. Only then can enforcement tools like payment blocking or DNS measures support the system. Strong regulation should benefit companies that hold licences not penalize them while offshore competitors flourish.
Across Europe, much regulation is written with limited understanding of how the industry operates. As a result, rules that aim to protect players often push them to unlicensed platforms instead. Whether this is due to poor industry advocacy or the weight of bureaucracy is unclear. What is clear is that effective frameworks must combine real penalties for violators with meaningful incentives for compliant operators.
Why No Unified Nordic Approach?
Logically, the region would benefit from a shared model. In practice, every country insists on reinventing its own system. Norway holds onto its exclusive model, Iceland remains uncertain and Sweden, Denmark and Finland all pursue parallel but incompatible structures. The operators are the same, the consumers are the same and the challenges are identical yet the solutions remain fragmented.
