Volatile energy prices, disrupted trade routes, new sanctions regimes: today’s geopolitical tensions make it painfully clear to Europe that sovereignty is not an abstract idea but a matter of concrete control. If you do not control critical infrastructure yourself, you remain vulnerable when it matters most.
This insight is now shaping debates around energy, trade and security, and is increasingly expanding the control of payments, as it should be. Payment systems are much more than technical service providers. These are the invisible rails of both the physical and digital economy, and whoever operates them ultimately decides the rules, access, and exclusions when necessary.
So is Europe’s payments dominance really that bad? Yes and no.
Dependency on global payment rails
On the one hand, a significant portion of payments processed across Europe are carried out through international card schemes such as: Visa And MasterCard. While these companies maintain a significant presence in Europe, significant parts of their infrastructure, governance and decision-making remain global and ultimately outside full European control. This constrains Europe’s ability to shape critical payment flows on its own terms.
This dependency is not only systemic; this is concrete. Whoever controls centralized payment flows has a real lever of economic influence, especially in times of geopolitical tension. It also directly affects the consumer. Many have little visibility into where payment data is processed and stored or who can access that data. It’s not about abstract principles, it’s about control and trust in everyday digital life.
Strong national foundations without integration
But this is only one side of the picture. On the other hand, elements of payment sovereignty exist in Europe, but they exist primarily at the national level, not on a pan-European scale. Examples include: To look in Poland, bizum in spain, Twint Payment Infrastructure in Switzerland, iDEAL Payments infrastructure in the Netherlands or Girocard in Germany. These systems are widely used and deeply established in domestic markets. With ChallengeA cross-border wallet is taking shape. It is already connecting with iDEAL in the Netherlands and Payconiq in Luxembourg and Belgium, with further integration likely to follow.
All of the above examples are initiatives from European banks. On the European Fintech front, you’ll find great, innovative startups enabling payments across Europe. Examples: Klarna, Brite, Truelayer, Satispay and much more.
This is real progress. But it also reveals a deeper structural problem. Behind each of these national solutions lie strong commercial ecosystems: banks, processors and plan operators with established positions in their home markets. A successful national plan is unlikely to accept replacement by another solution for purely political reasons. This creates a structural challenge: Europe needs to integrate, but its strongest existing systems are competing rather than merging. Resolving this tension is one of the most important obstacles on the path to true European payments sovereignty.
Therefore, Europe’s position is neither one of weakness nor of complete dominance. It has a proven capacity with strong national solutions, but the integration required to transform this strength into a truly European system is not yet there. Closing this gap will not be possible by building from scratch, but by overcoming the fragmentation of the existing one.
Sovereignty needs to be embraced
So yes, Europe faces problematic dependencies. It is essential to clearly state this fact in an environment of increasing geopolitical uncertainty.
But the truth is that political and economic awareness of European sovereignty has never been as strong as it is today. Political initiatives are moving in the right direction, increasingly treating digital infrastructures as strategic systems.
In practice, payment sovereignty will be achieved not through objections, but through solutions used in daily life.
As the CEO of a German payment provider, I have seen payment methods come and go. The successful ones have one thing in common: They offer clear added value from the consumer’s point of view. Consumer adoption is critical. Only solutions that fit seamlessly into existing habits will be successful.
What will it take to get there
From my point of view, four things are important:
First of all, as stated, payment sovereignty will be achieved not through applications, but through solutions used in daily life. Consumer adoption is critical: Only services that deliver clear value and integrate seamlessly into existing habits will achieve the necessary scale.
Second, international cooperation in payments is indispensable. We work with global players like Mastercard and Visa every day and benefit from their experience, reach and technological advancements. These partnerships are essential for seamless payment processes and global acceptance.
This is precisely why building European alternatives should not be framed as the opposite of international cooperation. European payment sovereignty does not mean isolation. This means deliberately developing capabilities and intelligently integrating them so that Europe can mobilize when it is needed.
Third, Europe must make it easier for the next generation of European payments companies to emerge, scale and compete. Whatever one thinks of China politically, one thing it does well is to support research, development and entrepreneurship by funding a wide range of startups, allowing them to compete and allowing the strongest solutions to rise to the top. The result is a stable portfolio of reliable competitors precisely in the most important technology categories.
Fourth, Europe needs to recognize that regulations may inadvertently reinforce the dependencies they seek to reduce. While European fintechs often operate under constant regulatory pressure, large international incumbents benefit from scale, established infrastructure and, in some markets, favorable tax or competitive conditions granted to them by the same European governments and regulators.
PSD2, for example, was intended to encourage innovation and competition in payments, but in practice it significantly weakened many private European account-to-account payments initiatives before they could reach scale. Similar concerns are emerging in the new consumer credit framework, where stricter requirements place a disproportionate burden on European Buy Now, Pay Later providers, leaving established global card-based models at a comparative advantage.
If Europe wants stronger local champions, regulation must not only protect consumers and ensure stability, but also create the conditions in which European innovation can realistically compete and grow.
The lesson is not to copy other models. Instead, Europe should define the sectors in which it plans to compete, including payments, and support them with capital, a clear regulatory framework and coordinated actions across member states. It should be easier to build a company than to cause it to break up. And success should be measured in decades, not election cycles.
From infrastructure to application
Sovereignty in payments will not be solved only with infrastructure projects. It will be built by European companies that are given the chance to succeed in their own markets and subsequently in their own markets. Policymakers can set the framework. But ultimately sovereignty will not be declared. It will be built on a transaction basis.
Robert Bueninck He specializes in payments and commerce and is currently the CEO. Unzer Group. Under his leadership, Unzer supports more than 90,000 merchants across Europe, helping them go digital with simple and integrated payment and software solutions. Whether it’s in-store, mobile or online shopping, payments and daily business tasks, Unzer offers everything businesses need in one place; an ecosystem that makes retail simpler, more efficient and seamless for consumers.
