I remember looking into this when the British National Lottery was started. (It was heavily, and dishonestly, promoted by the BBC with all the emphasis on winners and no mention of odds. The contract was given to an American company; I seem to remember there were doubts about them...)
There were six numbers from 1 to 49; picking all six was a 'jackpot' winner. Obviously, the odds are tiny. [In fact, 6C50 = about 1 in 16 million).
Plus - they love these little complications - another number, which gives a sub-jackpot if people have 5 of the 6 main balls. This is 6 times as likely as the main jackpot.
The only fixed payout was £10 for three correct numbers - obviously most people would never win a big prize; but part of the conditioning process is to have some payouts. Or people would soon give up.
Obviously they'd take revenue from shops, less the shop discount. Then the fun would begin. Presumably some percentage would go to the government to fund government-approved schemes - phoney art projects promoting multiculturalism, for example, via more or less fake race-based charities; or some government schemes to hand out money - climate change hoaxes, lawyers making money from immigration scams, medical money-making schemes, support for criminals at the expense of victims - but possibly even genuine charities.
But there seems to have never been a formula for allocating the totals. I was quite amazed to find 5 balls and the 'bonus' ball only paid out a few thousand pounds. The main attraction is the huge payouts. But the odds are small enough that the full 6 ball option sometimes failed, particularly if there was some combination that folk ideas suggested was unlikely. In this case there was a 'rollover' and the jackpot prize was larger - though of course equally unlikely to be won by a single ticket. Maybe there was a potential problem that a syndicate can buy up every single combination, and be guaranteed a win - but this will only be profitable if the win is large enough and not shared by too many others.
Probably the Euro lottery's takings, especially in a recession, are too low to ensure there won't be a long run of non-winners.
I think they might have done better to arrange the system so there were more, smaller, prizes, as a few hundred thousand between (say) ten people might be more attractive than a few million to one person. But I suppose they did their market research.