Online Poker Regulation in the EU: Licensing, Shared Liquidity, and Country-by-Country Analysis

Introduction: Why Poker Regulation Differs from Other Gambling

Online poker occupies a unique position in the European gambling landscape. Unlike slot machines or roulette, where outcomes are purely random, poker involves significant skill elements: reading opponents, calculating pot odds, managing bankroll, and making strategic decisions. Unlike sports betting, where players wager against the house, poker players compete against each other with the operator taking a rake (percentage of each pot) rather than accepting risk.

These distinctions have led to poker receiving specialized regulatory treatment in many EU jurisdictions. According to the European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA), online poker represents a significant segment of the regulated European gambling market, with particular concentration in France, Italy, Spain, and the shared liquidity pool.

Understanding how poker is regulated across Europe matters for players seeking legal games, operators planning market entry, and researchers analyzing gambling policy. This guide provides comprehensive coverage of the regulatory frameworks governing online poker throughout the European Union.

The Skill vs Chance Debate: Legal Classification of Poker

The fundamental question underlying poker regulation is whether it constitutes gambling. If poker is primarily a game of skill, some argue it should be exempt from gambling restrictions. If chance predominates, it falls squarely within gambling law frameworks.

Academic Research on Poker Skill

Extensive academic research has examined the skill-chance question. A landmark study published in the PLOS ONE journal by Duersch, Lambrecht, and Oechssler (2020) analyzed over 50,000 online poker players and found that skilled players consistently outperformed less skilled players over time, supporting the skill hypothesis. Similar research by Croson, Fishman, and Pope (2008) at the Wharton School demonstrated that poker performance correlates strongly with player experience and strategic sophistication.

However, courts and regulators have taken varied positions:

• Skill game rulings: Courts in Sweden, the Netherlands, and some US states have at times ruled that poker is predominantly skill-based
• Gambling classifications: Most EU jurisdictions classify poker as gambling due to the randomness of card distribution, regardless of skill in playing the cards dealt
• Hybrid approaches: Some jurisdictions distinguish between tournament poker (more skill-dependent over many hands) and cash games (where individual hand variance is higher)

For practical purposes, operators in EU markets should assume poker requires a gambling license. The theoretical skill-game argument has rarely succeeded in removing poker from gambling regulatory frameworks in Europe.

Shared Liquidity: The European Cross-Border Poker Agreement

One of the most significant developments in European poker regulation was the establishment of shared liquidity pools, allowing players from multiple countries to compete at the same tables despite each country maintaining separate licensing regimes.

The FSPIP Agreement

In 2017, France, Spain, Italy, and Portugal signed a shared liquidity agreement, creating the world's first regulated cross-border online poker network. The agreement allows operators licensed in participating countries to merge their player pools, dramatically increasing:

• Player pool size: Combined population of over 180 million people
• Game availability: More tables, stakes, and game types running 24/7
• Tournament prize pools: Larger guaranteed tournaments become economically viable
• Operator efficiency: Reduced costs from pooling liquidity across markets

Technical Implementation

Shared liquidity operates through technical protocols that identify player nationality and apply appropriate rules:

• Players are geo-located and verified through national licensing systems
• Rake and taxation are allocated to the player's country of residence
• Responsible gambling limits (deposit limits, self-exclusion) follow the player across the shared network
• If a player is excluded in one country, they cannot play on the shared network from any participating country

The European Commission has supported shared liquidity as consistent with EU single market principles while respecting member state sovereignty over gambling regulation. According to European Commission gambling policy guidance, cross-border cooperation that maintains consumer protection standards aligns with internal market objectives.

Country-by-Country Poker Regulation

The following analysis covers poker-specific regulatory aspects in major EU markets.

France

France was the first major EU country to license online poker when the market opened in 2010 under the supervision of ANJ (formerly ARJEL). Key poker-specific rules include:

France's poker market was initially ring-fenced (French players could only play against French players), which severely limited liquidity and led to market contraction. The shared liquidity agreement dramatically improved conditions, with major operators reporting significant player increases.

Spain

Spain regulates online poker through the DGOJ (Dirección General de Ordenación del Juego). Spanish poker regulation features:

Spain's integration into shared liquidity has been particularly successful, with Spanish players gaining access to much larger tournament fields and improved cash game selection.

Italy

Italy pioneered European online poker regulation with its 2006 framework, though the market evolved significantly. Current poker regulation includes:

Italy's high licensing costs and tax rates have consolidated the market among major international operators. The shared liquidity participation has been essential for maintaining viable poker offerings.

Germany

Germany permits online poker under the Interstate Treaty on Gambling (GlüStV 2021), though with significant restrictions:

Germany's strict deposit limits and the lack of shared liquidity participation make it a challenging market for poker. The monthly EUR 1,000 deposit cap significantly constrains higher-stakes players, pushing some toward unregulated offshore sites, which raises concerns about player protection.

Netherlands

The Netherlands legalized online gambling including poker in 2021:

The Dutch market is relatively new and remains ring-fenced, limiting poker liquidity. There has been discussion of potential shared liquidity participation, but no formal agreements have been reached.

Portugal

Portugal joined shared liquidity in 2017, significantly improving its small but active poker market:

Portugal benefits enormously from shared liquidity, as its population alone could not support a vibrant poker economy. Portuguese players now access the full FSPIP player pool.

Countries Without Licensed Online Poker

Several EU countries prohibit or do not license online poker:

• Poland: State monopoly model; private online poker prohibited
• Finland: Veikkaus state monopoly; private poker operators not permitted (market opening under discussion)
• Cyprus: Online casino games including poker are prohibited; only sports betting licensed
• Lithuania: Licensed market but poker liquidity extremely limited

Regulatory Considerations for Poker Operators

Licensing Requirements

Operators seeking to offer online poker in EU markets face country-specific licensing processes. Key considerations include:

• License types: Some countries issue separate poker licenses; others include poker under general online gambling licenses
• Technical requirements: Random number generator (RNG) certification, software testing, data protection compliance
• Financial requirements: Capital adequacy, player fund segregation, bank guarantees
• Responsible gambling: Problem gambling prevention measures, self-exclusion integration, limit-setting tools

The License Cost Estimator tool can help estimate market entry costs across different EU jurisdictions.

Anti-Collusion and Fair Play

Poker-specific regulatory concerns that operators must address include:

• Collusion detection: Systems to identify players cooperating to gain unfair advantage
• Multi-accounting prevention: Ensuring one player cannot operate multiple accounts at the same table
• Bot detection: Identifying and removing automated playing software
• Chip dumping: Detecting intentional loss of chips to transfer funds between accounts
• Real-time monitoring: Suspicious activity detection and investigation procedures

Regulators increasingly require operators to demonstrate robust game integrity measures as part of licensing conditions.

Rake Regulations

Some jurisdictions regulate the rake (commission) operators can charge:

• Maximum rake percentages per pot
• Rake caps (maximum amount per hand regardless of pot size)
• Transparency requirements (displaying rake calculations to players)
• Tournament fee disclosures

These regulations aim to prevent operators from extracting excessive value from the poker economy while maintaining viable commercial offerings.

Taxation of Poker Winnings

The tax treatment of poker winnings varies significantly across EU countries, creating complexity for both recreational players and professionals. The Player Winnings Tax Calculator can help determine obligations in specific countries.

Recreational Players

Many EU countries do not tax recreational gambling winnings:

• Not taxed: UK (historic; now outside EU), Belgium, Germany (recreational), Austria, Netherlands (recreational), most Nordic countries
• Taxed: France (above thresholds), Spain (income tax on winnings), Italy (withholding on tournament prizes)

Professional Players

Professional poker players face more complex obligations:

• Poker income may constitute self-employment income subject to income tax and social contributions
• Definition of "professional" varies (volume, consistency, treating poker as primary income source)
• Record-keeping requirements for substantiating wins and losses
• VAT considerations for poker coaching or staking income

The distinction between recreational and professional status is fact-dependent, and players with significant poker income should consult tax professionals in their country of residence. The OECD Tax Policy framework provides guidance on cross-border taxation issues that may affect poker players competing internationally.

Player Protection in Online Poker

Responsible Gambling Measures

Poker-specific responsible gambling considerations include:

• Session time alerts: Notifications after extended play sessions
• Loss tracking: Displaying cumulative session losses in real-time
• Deposit limits: Monthly, weekly, and daily caps on deposits
• Reality checks: Periodic pop-ups showing time and money spent
• Self-exclusion: Access to national exclusion registers (detailed comparison here)

Multi-tabling (playing several tables simultaneously), a common practice among serious players, amplifies both time and money spent. Regulators have considered whether to limit the number of simultaneous tables, though most jurisdictions have not implemented such restrictions.

Problem Gambling Considerations

Research from organizations like BeGambleAware indicates that poker presents specific harm profiles:

• The skill element may create overconfidence and illusion of control
• Variance in short-term results can lead to tilt (emotional decision-making)
• Chasing losses is common after bad sessions
• Tournament structures (long sessions, high variance) create specific risks

Operators and regulators increasingly require poker-specific intervention training for customer support staff and algorithms that detect problematic patterns unique to poker play.

The Future of EU Poker Regulation

Potential Shared Liquidity Expansion

The success of the FSPIP agreement has prompted discussion of expansion:

• Germany: Not currently participating; deposit limits may complicate integration
• Netherlands: Discussions ongoing but no formal steps
• Nordic countries: State monopoly models prevent participation currently
• New EU markets: As countries regulate, shared liquidity becomes more attractive

Any expansion would require bilateral agreements and technical integration, which can take years to implement.

Regulatory Harmonization

While EU law does not mandate gambling harmonization, practical pressures push toward convergence:

• Shared liquidity requires compatible player protection standards
• Cross-border competition puts pressure on outlier markets
• Technical standards increasingly converge across regulators
• Money laundering concerns drive similar AML requirements

Technology Developments

Emerging technologies may reshape poker regulation:

• AI and bots: Detection technology must evolve as AI improves
• Blockchain/crypto: Cryptocurrency integration raises regulatory questions
• VR poker: Virtual reality environments may require new frameworks
• Real-time monitoring: Enhanced surveillance capabilities for regulators

Conclusion

Online poker regulation in the European Union presents a complex patchwork of national frameworks, ranging from fully licensed and internationally connected markets like France, Spain, Italy, and Portugal, to restricted environments like Germany, to outright prohibitions in several member states.

The shared liquidity agreement represents a groundbreaking approach to cross-border gambling regulation, demonstrating that countries can maintain sovereign control over player protection while enabling the cross-border competition that makes poker viable. Its success may provide a model for future regulatory cooperation in other gambling verticals.

For operators, understanding the nuances of each market, from licensing costs and tax rates to responsible gambling requirements and shared liquidity eligibility, is essential for strategic planning. For players, knowing the legal status and protection frameworks in their country of residence enables informed decisions about where and how to play.

As the European poker market continues to evolve, with potential shared liquidity expansion, emerging technology challenges, and ongoing regulatory refinement, staying informed about these developments will remain crucial for all stakeholders.