EGBA: Norway iGaming Hampered by State Monopoly

Norway’s two state-owned iGaming operators are losing out on much of the action because offshore providers have “better choices and prices,” says Maarten Haijer (l.) of the European Gaming and Betting Association.

EGBA: Norway iGaming Hampered by State Monopoly

A state monopoly on iGaming in Norway means operators are losing out to the competition, unregulated offshore providers.

According to Maarten Haijer, secretary general of the European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA), the domestic operators, Norsk Tipping and Norsk Rikstoto, are “losing control of its online gambling market.” Norsk Tipping manages lotteries and sports betting, and Norsk Rikstoto is in charge of horse race wagering.

In an article on the EGBA website, Haijer said it’s “not surprising” that Norwegian bettors are moving away from the state monopoly, instead looking to international operators which offer them “better choices and prices.”

It is estimated that 66 percent of Norway’s online gambling activity now takes place on international websites, meaning the country has lost control of over half of its online gambling market, is losing out on about 2bn NOK in additional tax revenues each year, and many of its gamblers are not protected by Norwegian laws.

This is a significant problem for ensuring the monopoly does what it says: controlling online gambling and protecting players. If Norwegians play with international websites there is no way for the state to control their activity or protect them.”

Norway justifies its monopoly under the premise that the state is better placed, than private companies, to control online gambling and protect players from problem gambling,” he remarked. “But this argument, like Loki’s Wager, is based on a fallacy: it’s a country’s regulations and consumer protections which control online gambling and protect players, not whether there is a monopoly or not.”

Haijer said gamblers are “sensitive to prices and innovation” and “actively search for greater choice and alternatives” to those offered by the state monopoly, perhaps going for value and variety rather than the assurances that come with legal, regulated bets.

Instead of a state monopoly, Haijer recommends a multi-licensing system like those in Sweden and Denmark. “In a multi-licensed market, licensed companies must apply a range of regulations and consumer protections which are part of the local licensing rules,” he said.

Compliance with these licensing rules is monitored and enforced by the country’s gambling regulator, ensuring that the responsibility for controlling the level of consumer protection remains with the authorities.”