Cost of Complexity: BETER CFO on when growth stops being linear

BETER's finance leadership says growth frequently hides substantial, distributed costs that can make expansion uneconomic when complexity multiplies across markets and products. The company points to the need to quantify implementation, ongoing support and working capital before accepting deals, and notes it entered the regulated US market in 2025 and by October 2026 had approvals in ten states plus Ontario and Alberta in Canada.

Defining the cost of complexity

For BETER's CFO the starting question behind any growth initiative is straightforward: "How much revenue will this generate?" It is immediately followed by a second question: "What complexity are we adding to generate it, and is the return worth it?" The organisation uses the phrase cost of complexity to capture the sum of visible and hidden expenses that accompany additional markets, products and customers.

The company does not show a single line called "cost of complexity" on the profit and loss account. Instead these costs sit across the business: extra people, additional technology, compliance requirements, integrations, reporting, working capital and less visible items such as management attention, slower decisions and a rising number of exceptions. Big strategic moves—new markets or products—typically have business cases where many of these costs are explicit. More expensive complexity often enters as small items: a slightly different integration, a custom report, a non-standard commercial term. Each of those must be maintained and supported and they multiply across permutations of markets, products and clients.

A business with one product, one market and ten customers presents a different operational and economic profile from a business with five products, twenty markets and 100 customers, because the latter creates hundreds of additional combinations to manage.

Pricing, risk-sharing and temporary terms

BETER emphasises the distinction between complexity that creates value and complexity customers will not pay for. Operators entering new territories or integrating fast-paced content commonly request better commercial terms to offset risk. Introductory pricing structured around ramp-up periods, volumes or milestones can be sensible when there is a credible path to scale. The danger is temporary uncertainty producing permanent underpricing: costs for technology, data, trading, streaming, integrity monitoring and supporting infrastructure do not fall just because an operator is testing a market.

When assessing deals, BETER's finance team models implementation, ongoing support, working capital and the opportunity cost of the people involved. The company declines opportunities where headline revenue masks poor underlying economics—typical examples include contracts with heavy customisation or integration work, low committed volumes and long payment terms. In many cases the business prefers to restructure rather than reject: adjusting pricing, narrowing scope or adding volume thresholds to align economics and risk.

"A typical example is a deal with heavy customisation or integration work, low committed volumes and long payment terms. Once you account for implementation, ongoing support, working capital and the opportunity cost of the people involved, the return looks very different," the CFO said.

Costs required before revenue arrives

Entering a regulated market requires upfront spend that can be substantial. BETER lists licensing, external advisers, certifications and product adaptations among the obvious costs. It also counts internal legal and compliance resources, technology work, commercial preparation, tax analysis and management time.

The United States is the example BETER uses to explain how market entry fragments. The company notes that each US state has its own framework, so entering "the US market" effectively means entering many markets one at a time. BETER entered the regulated US market in 2025 and by October 2026 had approvals in ten states, as well as Ontario and Alberta in Canada. Before committing, the company evaluates how much of a theoretical market is realistically addressable, how quickly the investment can be monetised, the expected margin and whether the infrastructure built can be reused elsewhere.

BETER prioritises reusability of investment over raw market size. A large market is unattractive if access costs and time are disproportionate to the reward.

Supplier economics and procurement discipline

Suppliers across iGaming face constant pricing pressure. BETER says it treats its suppliers with the same economic rigour it expects from customers. Procurement should challenge costs, the company adds, but there is a distinction between reducing cost and transferring margin from one party to another. If a strategically important supplier is pushed below sustainable economics, investment falls, service levels deteriorate and innovation slows; in an extreme case the supplier disappears. The short-term cheaper solution becomes more expensive over time.

Procurement, therefore, should focus on total value and total cost rather than the lowest unit price.

"Procurement should be about total value and total cost, which can be quite different from the lowest unit price," the CFO said.

Discipline, guardrails and what fast-growing CFOs must watch

The CFO drew on prior experience in metals and mining, agriculture and technology to explain what transfers into iGaming. Capital-intensive industries impose discipline on capital allocation; agriculture teaches volatility and working capital management; audit experience helps understand how numbers are constructed. Speed of decision-making, however, transfers less well: lengthy approval processes can produce controlled decisions that arrive too late. The CFO prefers guardrails rather than gates—clear investment principles, good data, defined accountability and swift escalation when parameters are breached.

For CFOs in fast-growing businesses the recommendation is to watch the gap between growth and economic quality. Key metrics to monitor include unit economics, cash conversion, fixed-cost growth and the accumulation of bespoke activity. The repeated internal question should be whether investments build capabilities that make the next stage of growth easier, or whether resources are being added merely to cope with growth already created. There is nothing wrong with complexity that produces value; when complexity grows faster than organisational capability, growth becomes expensive and fragile.