Latest developments in Finland see opposition parties propose a number of amendments to the Gambling Bill and its mandate to modernise the country’s gambling laws and launch a new ‘open licence’ market by 2027.
The Finnish parliament’s Administration Committee has been tasked with ironing out the legislation since September, following the Bill’s scrutiny by the Constitutional Committee – which identified several areas that it labelled ‘too vague’ for such a dramatic overhaul.
Upon reviewing, the Administration Committee has indeed ironed out some elements of the legislation, though probably not the parts Finland’s prospective multi-licence, private actor gambling market viewed as necessary.
A pre-emptive axe to advertising
The opposition parties, The Greens and Left Alliance, have suggested serious restrictions to Finland’s forthcoming gambling marketplace in 2027, subject to finalising the terms of Gambling Bill.
Specifically, the opposition parties have proposed that health warnings should be mandatory in gambling marketing, similar to those seen on tobacco products as a compulsory warning to consumers.
A ban on TV and radio advertising and marketing via sports and public events, which would effectively put a pre-emptive ban on sports sponsorships by betting firms. There is also a stipulation around the definition of ‘moderate’ marketing.
This latter aspect of the legislation was one of the key areas the Constitutional Committee tasked the Administration Committee with clearing up – what exactly does moderate marketing mean? The Administration Committee recommends that the Ministry of the Interior be given the ultimate say in what types of marketing fit under this bracket.
Opposition blocs maintain calls for “Bonus and welcome incentives to be banned entirely – a recommendation that has drawn criticism from gambling operators, as self-harming the market against the offering of illegal operators.
The recommendations may not be taken on board by the MPs of the governing coalition – the Finns party, National Coalition, RKP and KD – and will probably be met with gloom by companies interested in the prospective market, as well as by the state-owned Veikkaus itself.
The main rationale behind the coalition government’s decision to liberalise Finland’s market is to channel more customers away from offshore and black market firms and to a government controlled one.
Veikkaus has supported this idea despite the competition it would bring, having struggled to compete with the more diverse, and often more risk adverse, offshore market. FOr the government, there are two main benefits – guaranteeing Finnish players more protections under a regulated multi-licence market, and perhaps the more significant one of tax revenue.
Not just ads
Of course, the Administration Committee was not just tasked with clearing up the situation around marketing but also with sorting out the vagueness of the rest of the Gambling Bill, as identified by the Constitution Committee.
On the aforementioned topic of tax, the Committee recommended that Finland’s gambling tax rate be set at 25.5%. This would put the market in line with the UK”s General Betting Duty of 25% (from April 2027 onwards), above Brazil’s newly chosen 18% rate, and far below France’s hefty sports betting rate of 59.3%.
As well as tax, the Administration Committee recommends that the age limit for gambling be set at 20. To settle some of the AML elements of the bill, the Committee has recommended that two-factor authentication be required at login and that the market use a system of deposit and loss limits that can be applied across all licensed companies.
The government hopes to, as noted above, launch a multi-licence Finnish betting market by 2027, with online betting licences while Veikkaus retains the monopoly over land-based casino games and the National Lottery.
Some of the topics highlighted by the Administration Committee show that there is still work to be done, and political debate can be expected. Proponents of the market and the operators will argue that marketing restrictions in particular could be detrimental by preventing firms from promoting themselves to customers against unlicensed offshore firms.