Market-structure concentration in European iGaming has been a recurring topic in trade-press coverage, in regulatory consultations, and in policy analysis of the sector. The discussions have generally relied on partial data, on inferences from secondary sources, and on summary statistics that do not engage substantively with the methodological complexity of measuring concentration in the iGaming context.
The available data on market-structure concentration deserve closer engagement than the typical trade-press coverage provides. The aim of this piece is to summarize what the contemporary data sources actually contain, what the methodological considerations for measuring concentration are, and what the substantive findings appear to be when the methodological considerations are addressed.
What the available data sources are
The data on European iGaming market structure come from several sources with different methodological characteristics. The principal sources include national supervisory authority reports, supranational supervisory bodies, industry associations, and commercial market-research providers. Each source has methodological strengths and limitations that affect what the data can support.
The national supervisory authority data are typically the most-rigorous source for the specific jurisdictions they cover. Supervisory authorities collect data on licensee revenues, customer numbers, and operational metrics through reporting requirements, and the data are processed through established methodological frameworks that support analytical reliability. The limitation is that the data are jurisdiction-specific and the cross-jurisdictional aggregation is not directly available from any single supervisory source.
The supranational supervisory bodies — including the European Banking Authority, the European Commission, and several specialized European Union bodies — produce data that aggregate across jurisdictions but with methodological adjustments that affect comparability. The supranational data provide cross-jurisdictional context but typically at less operational detail than the national data.
The industry association data are produced by sector bodies that aggregate operator-reported information. The industry data have the advantage of operator-level operational detail and the limitation that the methodology depends on operator participation in the reporting framework, with the resulting data potentially missing operators that do not participate.
The commercial market-research data are produced by research providers that aggregate from multiple sources including supervisory data, operator disclosures, and primary research. The commercial data have the advantage of integrated cross-jurisdictional coverage and the limitation that the methodology is not always fully transparent and the data are not generally validated through external verification.
The methodological considerations for measuring concentration
Measuring market concentration in iGaming presents several methodological considerations that the analytical work has engaged with. The principal considerations include market definition, revenue definition, and the level at which concentration is measured.
The market definition consideration addresses what the relevant market is for concentration analysis. iGaming includes multiple product categories — sports betting, casino, poker, lottery — that compete with each other to varying degrees and that may also compete with non-iGaming gambling categories. The market definition affects the concentration measurement substantially, with broader definitions producing lower concentration estimates and narrower definitions producing higher concentration estimates.
The revenue definition consideration addresses what the appropriate revenue measure is. The principal options include gross gambling revenue (GGR), net gambling revenue (NGR), and total turnover. The measures have different relationships to operator size and to competitive position, and the concentration estimates vary depending on which measure is used. The methodological literature includes substantive discussion of which measure is appropriate for which analytical purposes.
The level-of-analysis consideration addresses whether concentration is measured at the operator level, the corporate-group level, or the ownership level. iGaming operators frequently operate multiple brands, are part of corporate groups that include multiple operators, and may share ownership with other operators in ways that affect the concentration measurement. The level of analysis matters substantively for the concentration findings.
The geographic-scope consideration addresses whether concentration is measured at the jurisdiction level, the European Economic Area level, or the global level. The geographic scope interacts with the market definition and produces different concentration findings depending on the choice. The choice depends on the analytical question being addressed.
What the contemporary data show at the jurisdiction level
The contemporary data at the jurisdiction level, when the methodological considerations are addressed, show concentration patterns that vary substantially across European iGaming markets. Some jurisdictions show relatively concentrated markets with the leading operators accounting for substantial shares of the regulated market, while other jurisdictions show more dispersed market structures with no single operator dominant.
The factors that drive the cross-jurisdictional variation include the regulatory framework structure, the licensing accessibility, the market history, and the operational characteristics specific to each jurisdiction. Jurisdictions with more restrictive licensing tend to show higher concentration than jurisdictions with more open licensing, and jurisdictions with longer regulated-market history tend to show different concentration dynamics than jurisdictions with more recent regulation.
The concentration measurement at the corporate-group level rather than the brand level produces different findings, with the corporate-group analysis generally showing higher concentration because multiple brands often operate within single corporate groups. The methodological choice between brand-level and corporate-group-level analysis is itself substantive for the concentration findings.
The supervisory implications of the concentration findings vary across jurisdictions. Some supervisory authorities have engaged with concentration as a market-structure consideration that affects supervisory practice, while other authorities have not specifically addressed concentration in the supervisory framework. The methodological literature includes discussion of when concentration becomes a substantive supervisory consideration.
What the cross-jurisdictional patterns suggest
The cross-jurisdictional patterns in European iGaming concentration suggest several substantive observations that the analytical work has engaged with. The leading European iGaming corporate groups have presence across multiple jurisdictions, and the cross-jurisdictional presence has implications for the supervisory cooperation that the framework structure depends on.
The cross-jurisdictional concentration patterns also have implications for the regulatory environment. The corporate groups that operate across multiple jurisdictions face different regulatory frameworks in each jurisdiction, and the operational efficiency of the multi-jurisdiction footprint depends partly on framework convergence and partly on operational adaptation to framework differences. The trajectory of framework development affects the operational dynamics of the cross-jurisdictional operators.
The market-entry dynamics for new operators interact with the concentration patterns. Markets with higher concentration generally show different entry dynamics than markets with lower concentration, with implications for the licensing assessment and the supervisory engagement that the framework structures specify. The framework structures that address market-entry dynamics range from explicit market-structure considerations to operational specifications that interact with entry dynamics indirectly.
The methodological development and the data limitations
The methodological development of European iGaming concentration measurement has progressed substantially over recent years, with supervisory authorities and external researchers engaging with the methodological complexity through more rigorous data approaches. The cross-jurisdictional methodological consistency has improved through coordination among supervisory authorities and through methodological standardization in the supranational supervisory bodies.
The data limitations remain substantive in several areas. The unregulated and gray-market operations produce data limitations because the operators are not subject to the supervisory reporting that the regulated-market data depend on. The cross-jurisdictional flows of customers and capital produce additional methodological complexity that the regulated-market data do not fully capture. The trajectory of regulatory framework development affects which operations are captured in the data and how they are captured.
The methodological development is likely to continue as supervisory authorities engage with concentration measurement more substantively and as the cross-jurisdictional supervisory cooperation produces additional methodological alignment. The trade-press coverage of concentration findings should engage with the methodological substance and the data limitations rather than relying on summary statistics that do not capture the methodological complexity.
Why the methodological substance matters for analytical engagement
The methodological substance of concentration measurement matters for analytical engagement with the European iGaming market structure because oversimplified concentration claims can mislead policy analysis and supervisory practice. The actual concentration patterns are complex and methodologically dependent in ways that the typical trade-press coverage does not capture.
The methodological engagement also matters for understanding the trajectory of European iGaming regulation. The framework developments that supervisory authorities are pursuing reflect partly the methodological understanding of market structure that the supervisory analysis develops, and the analytical engagement with concentration measurement supports the policy development that the framework continues to require.
The European iGaming market structure is substantively complex, the methodological considerations are substantive, and the analytical engagement that supports compliance practice and policy development should engage with the substance accordingly. The continued methodological development will probably produce additional analytical clarity over the coming period, and the practitioner community working on European iGaming should engage with the methodological substance as it develops.
