Volatile energy prices, disrupted trade routes, new sanctions regimes: today’s geopolitical tensions are making 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 are vulnerable when it matters most.

This insight is now shaping debates around energy, trade, and security, and it is also increasingly extending to the control of payments, as it should. Payment systems are far more than technical service providers. They are the invisible rails of both the physical and the digital economy, and whoever operates them ultimately decides the rules, access, and, when necessary, exclusion.

But is Europe’s sovereignty in payments really in such poor shape? Yes and no.

Dependence on global payment rails

On the one hand, a significant share of payments processed across Europe runs through international card schemes such as Visa and Mastercard. While these companies maintain a substantial presence in Europe, key parts of their infrastructure, governance, and decision-making remain global in nature 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; it is tangible. Whoever controls central payment flows wields a real lever of economic influence, especially in times of geopolitical tension. It also directly affects consumers. Many have little transparency into where their payment data is processed and stored, or who may potentially gain access to it. This is not about abstract principles, but about control and trust in everyday digital life.

Strong national foundations without integration

Yet this is only one side of the picture. On the other hand, Europe does have elements of payment sovereignty – but they exist primarily at the national level, not at a pan-European scale. Examples include Blik in Poland, Bizum in Spain, Twint in Switzerland, iDEAL in the Netherlands, or Girocard in Germany. These systems are widely used and deeply embedded in their domestic markets. With Wero, a cross-border wallet is beginning to take shape. It is already linking with iDEAL in the Netherlands and Payconiq in Luxembourg and Belgium, with more integrations likely to follow.

The above examples are all initiatives coming from European banks. On the European fintech front, you will find great innovative initiatives that are able to provide payments across Europe. Examples are Klarna, Brite, Truelayer, Satispay and many more.

This is genuine progress. But it also exposes the deeper structural problem. Behind each of these national solutions sit strong commercial ecosystems: banks, processors, and scheme operators with established positions in their home markets.  It is unlikely that a successful national scheme will agree to be replaced by another solution purely for political reasons. This creates a structural challenge: Europe needs integration, but its strongest existing systems are competing rather than converging. Resolving this tension is one of the key hurdles on the path to genuine European payment sovereignty.

Europe’s position is therefore neither one of weakness nor of full sovereignty. It has the capability, proven by strong national solutions, but not yet the integration needed to translate that strength into a truly European system. Closing this gap will not be about building from scratch, but about overcoming the fragmentation of what already exists.

Sovereignty needs adoption

So yes, Europe is facing problematic dependencies. And against the backdrop of growing geopolitical uncertainty, it is essential to state this reality plainly.

But the truth is also that political and economic awareness of European sovereignty has never been stronger than it is today. Political initiatives are moving in the right direction by increasingly treating digital infrastructures as strategic systems.

In practice, payment sovereignty will not be achieved through appeals, but through solutions that are used in everyday life.

As the CEO of a German payment provider, I have seen payment methods come and go. Those that succeed 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 succeed.

What it will take to get there

From my point of view, four things are essential:

First, as said, payment sovereignty will not be achieved through appeals, but through solutions that are used in everyday life. Consumer adoption is critical: only services that offer clear value and integrate seamlessly into existing habits will reach the necessary scale.

Second, international cooperation is indispensable in payments. We, too, work every day with global players such as Mastercard and Visa, and benefit from their experience, reach, and technological progress. These partnerships are essential for smooth payment processes and global acceptance.

That is precisely why building European alternatives must not be framed as the opposite of international cooperation. European payment sovereignty does not mean isolation. It means building capabilities deliberately and integrating them intelligently so that Europe remains able to act when it needs to.

Third, Europe must make it easier for the next generation of European payment companies to emerge, scale, and compete. Whatever one may think of China politically, one thing it does well is how it supports research, development, and entrepreneurship, funding a broad field of startups, letting them compete, and allowing the strongest solutions to rise to the top. The result is a steady pipeline of credible challengers in exactly the technology categories that matter most.

And forth, Europe needs to recognize that regulation can unintentionally reinforce the very dependencies it seeks to reduce. European fintechs often operate under constant regulatory pressure, while large international incumbents benefit from scale, established infrastructure, and, in some markets, favourable tax or competitive conditions given to them by the same European governments and regulators.

PSD2, for example, was intended to foster innovation and competition in payments, yet in practice it significantly weakened many private European account-to-account payment initiatives before they could achieve scale. Similar concerns are now emerging around the new consumer credit framework, where stricter requirements risk disproportionately burdening European Buy Now, Pay Later providers while leaving established global card-based models comparatively advantaged.

If Europe wants stronger domestic champions, regulation must not only protect consumers and ensure stability but also create conditions in which European innovation can realistically compete and grow

The lesson is not to replicate other models. Instead, Europe should define the sectors where it intends to compete – including payments – and support them with capital, a clear regulatory framework, and coordinated action across member states. It should be easier to build a company than to navigate fragmentation. And success must be measured over decades, not electoral cycles.

From infrastructure to execution

Sovereignty in payments will not be solved by infrastructure projects alone. It will be built by European companies that are given a real chance to succeed in their own market, and then beyond it. Policymakers can set the framework. But in the end, sovereignty will not be declared. It will be built – transaction by transaction.

‍