In this interview, Paul Shackleton, CFO at Kiron Interactive explores how financial discipline can become a competitive advantage in the rapidly expanding iGaming market. The discussion looks at why saying “no” – or “not yet” – can be just as important as pursuing new opportunities, and how companies can distinguish between attractive markets and genuinely value-creating ones.

How has the role of the CFO changed in iGaming, particularly when it comes to market entry?

The short answer is – the CFO role has evolved considerably. Finance was once brought in after the commercial decision had largely been made. Today, the CFO needs to be involved much earlier, because market entry is no longer simply a revenue decision – it’s also a capital-allocation decision. At Kiron, we have to look beyond the headline revenue opportunity and understand the full economic picture.

This includes factors such as regulatory and licensing requirements, integration and development costs, infrastructure, ongoing compliance, and, importantly, the internal resources diverted from other opportunities.

A market can therefore look very attractive commercially but still destroy value financially. The CFO’s job is not necessarily to say no, but rather to make sure that when we say yes, we understand the risk-adjusted return on the capital and resources we’re committing.

‍Is saying “no” sometimes a competitive advantage?

Absolutely. I would actually go further and say the ability to say no is a form of capital discipline. iGaming is an industry with enormous geographic opportunity, and that creates a natural temptation to pursue almost every market where there appears to be demand.

But opportunity and economic value are not the same thing. Every market you enter has an opportunity cost. Management attention, company resources and capital are finite. The question therefore isn’t: “Can we enter this market?” but rather: “Is this the best use of our capital and resources relative to the other opportunities available to us?” Sometimes the correct answer is “no”. Sometimes it is “not yet.” And sometimes it is “yes, but only if the commercial structure changes.”

The companies that can make those distinctions consistently are ultimately going to allocate capital better than those pursuing growth at any cost.

What are the biggest factors you consider when evaluating a new market?

I would group them into five broad areas:

• Addressable commercial opportunity – What is the realistic revenue opportunity rather than the theoretical size of the market? What distribution can we realistically achieve?
• Cost of entry – Licensing, certification, legal advice, localisation, infrastructure and tax structuring all need to be considered.
• Ongoing economics – Once we are live, what does the market actually contribute after tax, revenue share, support, infrastructure and compliance costs?
• Risk – Regulatory stability, currency convertibility, payment and collection risk, and the ability to repatriate funds are particularly important when operating across multiple emerging markets.
• Time to revenue and scalability – Spending $200,000 to enter a market that generates $500,000 of annual contribution is very different from spending the same amount for a market that may generate $100,000 three years from now.

One of the most important things finance can do is force the organisation to distinguish between revenue and profitable, cash-generative revenue. Those are very different things.

What does market entry actually cost?

This is where businesses can underestimate the economics. The licence or certification fee is normally the most visible cost, but it is rarely the whole cost.

You need to consider a significant range of factors such as legal and regulatory advice, product certification, integrations, infrastructure, compliance and ongoing reporting requirements, among many others.

Then there is a cost that is much harder to see – internal opportunity cost.

If engineering spends three months adapting a product for one jurisdiction, what else wasn’t developed during those three months? If compliance and legal resources spend significant time supporting one market, what other initiatives have been delayed?

Those costs don’t necessarily appear on a market-entry invoice, but economically they are very real.

Businesses need to evaluate markets on a fully loaded basis, rather than simply comparing expected revenue against the obvious external costs.

Is virtual sports more difficult than a traditional slots studio when it comes to market entry?

In certain respects, yes. One of the complexities of virtual sports is that the exact same underlying product can be treated differently from one jurisdiction to another. In one market it may be treated similarly to a casino-style RNG product. In another, it may fall under sports betting regulation.

So while the technology is scalable globally, the regulatory treatment is not always scalable in the same way.

Virtual sports also has a broader operational footprint than people sometimes appreciate, which is why Kiron isn’t necessarily just supplying a game. Depending on the market and distribution model, there can be things like feeds, broadcasts, retail environments, infrastructure and different certification requirements to take care of.

That means the financial model for entering a jurisdiction can be materially different from simply certifying a portfolio of online slots and distributing them through existing aggregation channels. The advantage, however, is that once the regulatory and distribution infrastructure is established, the economics can become very attractive because the underlying content and technology can be leveraged across multiple operators.

How can financial discipline actually enable growth rather than restrict it?

Good financial discipline allows you to take more of the right risks. If you understand your unit economics, market-entry costs, payback periods and downside exposure, you can deploy capital with much greater confidence. Financial discipline isn’t about spending less. It is about allocating more capital to the things that deserve it and less to the things that don’t.

That ultimately accelerates sustainable growth.

In Conclusion

The role of the modern CFO is to protect the business from growth that doesn’t create value.

In a global industry such as iGaming, there will always be another jurisdiction, another licence, and another commercial opportunity. The scarce resources are capital, people and management attention. The companies that win over the long term won’t necessarily be the ones that pursue the most opportunities. Instead, they will become exceptionally good at identifying which opportunities deserve disproportionate investment – and which ones they are prepared to walk away from.

That is where financial discipline becomes a genuine competitive advantage.

‍