Norway conservatives take aim at Norsk Tipping monopoly

Norway’s Conservatives are preparing actions to push for the abolishment of Norsk Tipping’s monopoly over the country’s gambling market. 

Tage Pettersen, an MP who is also a member of the second biggest political group in Parliament, will use the stage at the upcoming Conservative Party national convention to advocate for the introduction of a multi-licensing system in Norway. 

This was made clear in an interview with Pettersen published in local newspaper Moss-Avis.

If measures are not taken against it, Norway will soon become the only European state with a gambling monopoly. Looking at its other Nordic neighbours,  Denmark and Sweden have long moved away from this model, while Finland is on its way to launching a licensing system by 2027. 

For Moss-Avis, Pettersen said: “In Finland, which is phasing out the monopoly scheme from 2027, it is expected to increase the gambling funds for sports and volunteering by three billion kroner (£217.5m) annually by reregulating the gambling policy to a licensing scheme. 

“In Norway, we can now create the best model based on the experiences from Denmark, Sweden and Finland. No one in these countries is advocating a return to a monopoly!”

The idea that a transition to a licensed gambling market would be a financially sound step for Norway is also backed by consultancy firm Menon Economics. A number of reports conducted by the firm between 2016 and 2022 have all returned profitable predictions.

Assessments from these re-regulation analyses have returned positive growth estimates for a plethora of sectors, including sports, which Menon Economics says will reach a minimum of two billion kroner of extra funding per year. 

Problem gambling 

A key focus for every regulated market is the minimisation of problem gambling harms. But is there a significant difference in how this matter is handled by a monopoly against a multi-licensing regime? 

Pettersen is positive that there is currently room for improvement and that the opening up of Norway’s market would bring in key solutions to the table thanks to the combined efforts and duty delegation of all market participants. In other words – strength in numbers.

“Norway is at the top when it comes to gambling problems in the Nordic countries, despite some decline in recent years. This means that the current model is not good enough at taking care of the players who have problems,” he said.

“In a licensing [regime], all gaming companies will be equally responsible for reacting and initiating measures when there are signs of problem gambling.”

The Conservative MP’s views were also backed by Carl Fredrik Stenstrøm, who is the Secretary General of the Norwegian Online Gaming Industry Association (NBO). 

For Moss-Avis, Stenstrøm shared a similar sentiment to Pettersen, stating that the theoretical increase in presence of market players will bring more unification rather than fragmentation around reducing the prevalence of gambling harms. 

“All companies that are members of NBO have very good systems and routines for detecting – and preventing – problem gamblers,” Stenstrøm said. 

“In practice, these are large departments and advanced digital solutions that have this as their sole task. It is a myth that the large international companies are worse at responsible gambling than Norsk Tipping.

“My members collaborate with the same researchers and suppliers in this field. No one benefits from problem gambling, and as we see in countries with a licensing model, gambling problems have been reduced precisely because serious companies get a larger share of the market.”

Opposing views 

As with every shift in major national policies however, there are also those who oppose Pettersen and Stenstrøm in their idea for a multi-licensed regime. 

For one, the Norwegian Sports Federation (NIF) – a nationwide program whose goal is to increase the participation of children in sports – became one of the co-signees alongside 73 other organisations that came out in support of Norsk Tipping. 

Else-Marthe Sørlie Lybekk, Secretary General of NIF, commented: “We cannot be indifferent to how we are financed. A licensing model will result in more problematic gaming behavior and less money for socially beneficial purposes. 

“NIF is for responsibility and profits for socially beneficial purposes – that is why we are in favor of the Norwegian model for gambling.”

Sørlie Lybekk said that she remains unconvinced of the promises made by international gambling companies for more funding into professional and grass-root sports.

“Foreign gaming companies are working hard to win support for a switch to a licensing model, and are promising more money for volunteering. We believe that will result in more games, but not more responsibility or profits. It is not a model that the organizations want,” she added. 

Another critical voice is that of the Blue Cross Norway (BCN) – a volunteer organisation dealing with the support of people suffering from addiction. 

Trine Stensen, Secretary General of BCN, echoed Sørlie Lybekk’s comments by adding: “We treat people with gambling addiction, and know that Norwegian regulation has a lot to say. 

“The majority of those who come to us have lost a lot of money with foreign gaming companies, which do not have the same accountability rules as the Norwegian [companies]. 

“Rather than opening the market to foreign gaming companies, we believe it is right to focus on measures that improve the protection and treatment of people with gambling addiction.”

Final words

While there is still a lot of uncertainty surrounding which way will Norway decide to go, one thing is clear – the preferred approach to regulated gambling across the majority of Europe is multi-licence. 

Out of the 31 countries within the Old Continent, 27 currently have some form of multi-licensing in place. This includes all types of online gambling, such as sports betting, casino gaming, poker, and bingo products. 

Reservations still exist in Norway about a potential market transition – that is also clear. However, there is no denying that the country has the luxury of examining the many examples in front of it. Waiting a few more years to see how Finland’s 2027 market develops is also a valid option. Whatever path Norway chooses to take, it will be a well-informed decision overall.