UK redraws the global payments map

In a move that carries implications beyond the banking sector, the United Kingdom is moving toward establishing a national payment system that can operate alongside Visa and Mastercard. The initiative is being led by Britain’s largest banks with institutional and government backing. While the stated goal is to strengthen operational resilience and reduce technical risks, the broader implications are far deeper.

The UK is considered one of the world’s most advanced economies in terms of reliance on digital payments. According to the UK Payment Systems Regulator, around 95% of card transactions are processed through Visa and Mastercard. In 2024 alone, Britons made more than 31 billion card payments, worth nearly £1 trillion. This means that a massive share of everyday consumer activity flows through infrastructure controlled by two American companies.

The British move does not mean cutting ties with Visa and Mastercard, but rather building a sovereign network that functions as a parallel or backup option, essentially a national financial safety layer capable of keeping the economy running regardless of political or technical disruptions that could negatively affect the stability of the local digital financial system. When nearly £1 trillion annually depends on external networks, diversification becomes a matter of sovereignty, not merely a technical decision.

Why does this step carry special significance?

The importance of this development also stems from the identity of the parties involved. We are not talking about rival nations, but about the United States and the United Kingdom, two historic allies tied by deep military and economic relationships. If London, Washington’s closest partner, sees the need to build a relatively independent national payment network, the message goes beyond technical considerations. It reflects a shift in how countries view financial infrastructure and the need to avoid complete dependence on foreign companies that could, at any moment, become tools of pressure through sanctions or political decisions.

The Greenland issue and the former U.S. president’s threats toward NATO allies served as a warning that excessive reliance on American companies could expose the UK’s payment systems to risk. The Russian experience also became a clear example that caught the attention of Britain and Europe. When Visa and Mastercard services were suspended in Russia, a large portion of local transactions was disrupted, forcing the financial system into urgent restructuring. Even if such a scenario seems politically unlikely between London and Washington, it reveals the fragility of one-sided dependence on external networks.

The caution is not only British!

This is no longer a British-only issue. On the European level, ECB President Christine Lagarde called for the creation of an independent European payment system, noting that most European digital payments pass through non-European infrastructure. Initiatives such as the European Payments Initiative (EPI) have also been launched, aiming to build a network covering more than 130 million users across 13 countries.

This reflects growing national caution and global instability driven by economic wars and geopolitical tensions. If London, one of the world’s most important financial centers, begins reducing its single dependence on global networks owned by foreign companies, and Europe follows the same path, this could push other countries to think similarly in order to protect their financial systems and reduce the risks of foreign monopolies over domestic economies. The British and European moves may drive the global financial landscape toward greater diversity and less concentration in the hands of a few foreign corporations.

We may not witness the collapse of the global financial system, but we are likely to see a gradual rebalancing. As competition among major powers intensifies, owning independent financial infrastructure becomes an element of national security. What started in London and is being reinforced in Brussels could extend to Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America, where awareness is growing about the risks of full dependence on foreign payment networks.

Is the era of financial sovereignty beginning?

If this step succeeds, the biggest losers could be major American companies such as Visa and Mastercard, as they may lose one of the world’s most important and largest markets especially in an economy that relies almost entirely on digital payments. On the other hand, this could open the door for the rise of new local players such as DeliveryCo in the UK and Wero in Europe, increasing competitiveness, reducing monopoly power, and giving states greater control over payment infrastructure that has become a key part of national security.

Despite Visa and Mastercard publicly welcoming competition, the bigger question remains: how will the U.S. respond politically and economically? And will these new local networks be able to win consumer trust and ensure operational stability? Especially since these projects may initially function only as backup systems used in exceptional circumstances, meaning the direct impact on American companies could be limited in the early stages.

However, the real transformation is not about profits or losses, but about the strategic meaning of the move itself. Building national or regional payment networks is no longer just a technical or economic project, it has become part of domestic policymaking and a tool for managing sovereignty and financial independence. As this trend expands across Britain and Europe, we may be facing a pivotal moment that changes the global payments system from reliance on a limited number of global networks to a more diverse system where countries exert greater control and redefine financial influence.

What is happening today in London and Brussels may not simply be infrastructure development, but the beginning of a new phase in the world of payments, one where financial decision-making becomes part of national policy, just like defense and energy.