Policymakers in Poland argue against iGaming liberalisation, pointing to growing black markets across Europe. But lobbyists warn the monopoly model is not as protective as they think.
Across much of Europe, gambling policy has entered a defensive phase. Regulators from the Nordics to southern Europe are tightening advertising rules, revisiting tax rates and grappling with an uncomfortable trend: lower channelisation and a resurgent black market.
Against that backdrop, calls to liberalise a market can sound misaligned to some. Yet in Poland — and, by extension, across Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) — the debate runs in precisely that direction.
Poland: A hybrid model under strain?
Poland’s gambling regime is unusual by EU standards. Land-based casinos, bingo halls and slot machines operate under licences. Online sports betting is open to private operators, although subject to a 12% turnover tax. Online casino, however, remains the exclusive domain of Total Casino, run by the state-owned Totalizator Sportowy.
“The Polish gambling market is legally unusual,” says Piotr Palutkiewicz, general director of the Warsaw Enterprise Institute. He accepts the original logic. “I can understand why lawmakers introduced this model around nine years ago. At that time, online gambling was still relatively new in Poland, and perhaps the government believed a monopoly would protect consumers from addiction.” But, he argues, “after nine years, we see that this has proven to be an illusion”.
The illusion, in his telling, is control, “because it is technically impossible to eliminate offshore operators”. Poland maintains a blacklist of banned domains — “around 55,000 websites have been blocked”. Yet, as he notes, this is “a cat-and-mouse game”.
His statement echoes points made in a panel held last April as part of the European Economic Congress, which called for an end to Poland’s monopoly over iGaming. Zdzislaw Kostrubala, president of Poland’s gambling trade association, Graj Legalnie, called the monopoly model an “anachronism” in today’s world.
The numbers are stark, highlights Piotr Palutkiewicz: “Today, around 40% of the online casino market in Poland belongs to grey or [unlicensed] operators. Even more striking, approximately 83% of individuals who play online casino games have accounts on illegal platforms.” Many, he says, are unaware that only one platform is legal.
“Initially, the grey market was close to 100%. Now it’s around 40%.” But growth in channelisation appears to have plateaued. “In recent years, the monopoly’s market share has remained relatively stable. Meanwhile, the overall market is growing by roughly 11% year-on-year.” This stagnation is central to the liberalisation argument. Yet, it is also the point at which Poland’s reformers run into Europe’s changing mood.
Lobbying in a politically hostile climate?
In much of Western Europe, liberalisation has been followed by by regulatory retrenchment. Tighter advertising rules and rising taxes in some jurisdictions coincided with declining channelisation and increased offshore activity. For Polish policymakers, this offers a convenient ammunition for their argument: why dismantle a monopoly if competitive markets elsewhere are struggling?
Also, Poland’s 2009 gambling scandal left a deep imprint on political culture. Triggered by leaked recordings suggesting attempts to influence gambling tax legislation, the affair led to the resignation of several senior politicians and the rapid passage of a more restrictive gambling law. The episode cemented a view of the sector as politically toxic. To this day, many lawmakers are wary of being seen as close to industry interests.
Palutkiewicz is explicit: “The main barrier is political. The 2009 gambling scandal damaged the reputation of the industry, and politicians are cautious about touching gambling legislation.” Many, he adds, “fear accusations of improper lobbying or corruption”. This historical memory complicates any push for reform — especially when the rest of Europe seems to be tightening rather than opening.
Marek Płota of RM Legal, a law firm based in Wroclaw, explains further. “Politicians are cautious. Currently, only the far-right party Konfederacja (Confederation) includes liberalisation in its agenda. They received around 15% of the vote in the last election and may play a significant role after the 2027 elections. Until then, meaningful legislative change is unlikely,” he says.
Operators: growth within constraints
Operators insist the economic case for a liberal iGaming market in Poland remains compelling. Superbet entered the market in 2020. “In just over five years, we have built the business from scratch to become the No. 2 operator in Poland by NGR, which confirms the effectiveness of our strategy and dynamic growth,” says Łukasz Seweryniak, general manager of Superbet in Poland.
He describes a market of contrasts. “Poland is a very challenging market. On one hand, we have consumers who are open to technology, a strong sports culture, and a large economy ranked in the global top 20. On the other hand, the iGaming industry operates under one of the most restrictive regulatory frameworks in Europe, that means both in terms of taxation and product limitations.”
The 12% turnover tax on sports betting is, he notes, “one of the highest levels of taxation in Europe”. It “affects the attractiveness of licensed operators’ offers and supports the persistence of the grey market, for example in areas such as live betting or winnings amount levels”.
Despite this, growth prospects are solid. “The Polish online sports betting market remains attractive and we expect growth of around 15% in 2026 compared to 2025. An additional driver will be the summer World Cup.”
The paradox is clear: a heavily taxed, tightly regulated market can still expand, but that very growth strengthens the government’s argument that the status quo works.
Channelisation has its limits
Poland’s sports betting channelisation is relatively robust. According to Płota: “Poland has achieved a relatively strong channelisation rate, estimated at 70%-80%, depending on methodology.” Licensed operators can advertise, including via Google and influencers, helping them compete with offshore brands.
But online casino tells a different story. Płota estimates that “around 40% of online casino activity is illegal. Approximately 1.2 million Polish citizens play on illegal online casinos annually.” The monopoly argues that channelisation has improved, reportedly reaching around 60%. Yet, as Palutkiewicz notes, “that’s an unusual claim for a monopoly. A monopoly, by definition, should control close to 100%. If 40% remains outside the regulated market, something is clearly wrong.”
For reform advocates, this plateau is evidence that the model has “reached its ceiling”. Seweryniak cites forecasts suggesting that by 2030 “the current monopoly system may improve channelisation by only 2-3 percentage points, which indicates that the model is becoming exhausted”.
The difficulty is persuading politicians that opening the market would improve, rather than weaken, channelisation — particularly when some liberalised Western markets are wrestling with rising black market shares.
Why CEE is treated as one market in gambling
Beyond Poland, the broader CEE region is often grouped together in corporate reporting. The label typically encompasses Poland, Czechia, Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Hungary, with other markets in varying stages of development.
“CEE is often treated as a combined reporting region because these markets share many structural similarities,” says Seweryniak. They are linked by “relatively fast adoption of digital technology, growing economies, strong interest in sport and similar regulatory challenges related to channelisation and combating the black market”.
Płota adds that the region “is often viewed separately for political, cultural and economic reasons”, including shared historical legacies and strong growth trajectories. Individually, most CEE markets are smaller than Britain or Germany. Collectively, they represent a sizeable and growing opportunity. Yet regulatory diversity is striking: some countries operate competitive licensing systems across verticals; others retain monopolies in selected segments. Poland sits in between.
Reform against the European mood
The Polish debate therefore encapsulates a broader European dilemma. If competitive licensing is associated with declining channelisation elsewhere, liberalisation becomes harder to sell. Yet maintaining a monopoly that captures only 60% of a growing market also looks imperfect.
Palutkiewicz’s mission is clear: “We should stop pretending the market is well regulated.” He argues for a competitive licensing model akin to sports betting, where, he believes, “only about 12% of that market is in the [black market]”.
Whether that argument will gain traction remains uncertain. “I believe it must happen eventually. The current situation is not sustainable,” he says. But until political risk recedes — and until policymakers are convinced that liberalisation can coexist with high channelisation — the status quo is likely to hold.
In the meantime, the market grows. “Even without reform, the market will continue expanding,” Palutkiewicz observes. The unresolved question is who benefits: the state monopoly, licensed private operators — or the offshore sector?