Treasury nearly doubles the online gambling tax
In the first hours after the publication of the 2025–2026 budget plans, the UK gambling sector found itself at the center of political turbulence. Shares in the biggest operators slid, company press offices issued statement after statement, and lobbying structures shifted into full mobilization mode. The Labour government announced an increase in Remote Gaming Duty (the tax on remote/online gambling) from 21% to 40%, and the debate about the industry’s future ignited immediately.
Why London wants a rate this high
The authorities’ official rationale rests on two arguments. First, it is a revenue-raising measure. Second, it is a step toward reducing gambling-related harm. The Treasury insists that online products cost operators significantly less than maintaining land-based betting shops and venues, and that the industry is therefore able to withstand a higher tax burden.
Technically, the change applies to online casinos and slots that fall under Remote Gaming Duty. The new 40% rate applies to accounting periods beginning from 6 April 2026. According to Treasury forecasts, the reform will bring in an additional £1.1 billion by 2029–2030.
What operators and industry bodies are saying
The industry response was coordinated and hard-line. The main public talking points can be reduced to several items:
- the risk of job cuts;
- a reduction in sponsorship spending in sport;
- a deterioration in the economics of the regulated market overall.
The messaging centers on the concept of “economic damage” and the need to protect the regulated market from self-destruction.
Playing the “black market” card
A separate line in companies’ arguments is a warning about a possible shift of players to the unregulated segment. Operators point out that tighter conditions push audiences toward unlicensed sites, and frame it as concern for consumers. However, critics note that the argument about the illegal market comes up with almost every regulatory tightening and is increasingly seen as a pressure tactic rather than a sincere concern for player safety.
At the same time, it’s also worth noting that more and more UK players are choosing online casinos with international licences. However, this is far from always connected to regulatory changes. Surveys show that many users choose such platforms for a fairly simple reason – because of a broader catalogue of gambling games.
Most land-based casinos still limit themselves to traditional entertainment – card games, roulette, slot machines. However, there is far more variety in the virtual gambling market, and it has been that way for a long time. It now includes Plinko, crash games, and live game shows in a “Wheel of Fortune” format. As the authors of the ice fishing live casino game show site note, such games attract gamblers with simple rules and short rounds. The new generation of players isn’t willing to settle for classic entertainment; they prefer variety, even if it is in a grey area.
The lobbying campaign is gaining momentum
The scale of the industry’s pushback goes well beyond public statements. Industry bodies have entered into direct talks with Treasury officials, and individual operators are pushing their case through every available channel. How such actions are interpreted depends on the political lens: for some, it is legitimate interaction between business and the state; for others, it is an example of excessive corporate influence. But the scale of the campaign is hard to ignore.
How much the industry says it will lose, by its own estimates
Companies have already made public their calculations of potential damage:
- Entain estimates the overall impact of changes in remote gaming and betting duties on its UK online business at around £200 million before mitigation measures; the company plans to offset about a quarter of that impact by cutting marketing spend.
- Evoke forecasts an additional annual burden of £125–135 million starting from the period after 2027.
- Playtech expects losses in “millions of euros,” but does not disclose the exact range.
All these figures are corporate estimates published in the public domain. In essence, each of them is simultaneously a financial forecast and part of their negotiating position.
What players will notice
If the tax burden rises, operators look for compensation through marketing and product strategy. Companies have already signaled their intention to cut promotions, reduce the number of free bets, make bonus programs less generous, and adjust odds. These changes will hit regular players hardest, often on lower incomes, for whom bonuses and promotions were a routine part of the experience.
Against the backdrop of tighter conditions, part of the audience is paying attention to international online platforms. Comparison sites report characteristic motives: a broader catalogue of games, fewer restrictions, and aggressive bonus offers. However, such platforms are not a full substitute for licensed operators and carry their own risks.
What’s really behind the standoff
For the government, the rate increase is an attempt to make a profitable industry pay more into the public coffers, and the projected £1.1 billion by 2029–2030 makes a compelling case for the decision. For Labour, which promised to “govern differently,” the outcome of this standoff will be something of a litmus test: whether the Cabinet will hold the line without significantly watering it down, or whether the lobbying machine will win concessions.
About the Author
