In the UK, taxation of gambling has been a constant for just over a decade now, ensuring there is revenue flowing for public services and enough of a framework to promise operators will contribute justly to society. The landscape has evolved during this period, paralleling the rise in gambling and changes in player behaviour and the desire for impartial competition between domestic and international operators.
Even with a robust system currently in place, debates are still ongoing about how taxes could be changed with the future in mind. In this article, I will be exploring the current tax substructure, its recent approaches for reform, and the looming implications of newer tax strategies on the industry that will impact operators and players.
The Evolution of Gambling Taxes in the UK
The UK has approached its gambling taxation in various ways over the past decade.
Back in 2014, the Government introduced the now invaluable point-of-consumption framework. This required all operators currently promoting themselves towards UK customers to obtain a UK Gambling Commission licence, even if not based directly in the UK. Changing this guaranteed that taxes were being applied strictly based on where players were located, as opposed to wherever the operator’s “headquarters” was. This created more of a balanced grounding for domestic providers.¹
Remote Gaming Duty Increases
In October of 2019 (five years later), the Remote Gaming Duty (RGD) soared from 15% to 21%. The incline of contributions reflected a staggering growth of online gambling, especially for casino and slot games, intending to declare a more secure offering from operators profiting off UK consumers. This rate currently forms a key facet of the UK’s taxation approach to online gambling.²
The Impact of Digital Growth
Online gambling’s augmentation has essentially changed the market completely. Gambling remotely now accounts for a substantial section of the total Gross Gambling Yield (GGY), meaning it is a valuable target for taxation reforms. This swing of dependency has driven the Government to closely monitor the foreseeable balance between what is a fair taxation and the industry’s overall competitiveness with a keen eye.
How the Current System Works
As of today, the taxation of gambling in the UK is based on the summation of Gross Gambling Yield (GGY). This sum is representative of the total wagering of players at these casinos minus the winnings returned. Gambling remotely has been an indelible component within this whole ecosystem. From 2024 onwards, this version of gambling was culpable for nearly £6.9 billion of the entire £15.6 billion GGY produced all over the United Kingdom, which is representative of 44% of the market as a whole!³
The Remote Gambling Duty is paid by operators based on this total yield, and funds are then fed back into the public revenue in turn. Essentially, this system is designed to guarantee the online sector thrives and pays its dues proportionally to what has been accounted for. Land-based operators will then still pay and contribute according to the General Betting Duty of their operations.
Proposed Changes to Gambling Taxation
The discourse recently has focused mainly on the likelihood of synergised tax rates being spread across all gambling products. This will simplify the system in turn, raising more concerns about the financial impact on operators and specific markets like horse racing, for example. In May of this year, industry officials in racing gave a warning about a potential unified duty that could cost their whole sector an estimated £40 million annually, underscoring the fine balance policymakers need to aim to hit.⁴
With these talks ongoing, there have been emerging proposals advocating for a sharp increase in Remote Gaming Duty. It could even reach up to 50%. Estimates by analysts are showing that an increase this big could generate up to £2 billion in extra tax revenue.⁵ The figures that are being passed around exemplify just how striking the financial commitment is here, as well as the wider conversation about fairness, endurance, and market growth.
Supplementary to these duty increases, the Government has also announced that there will be a statutory levy put in place to fund research, deterrents, and treatment of gambling-related harm. As of April 2025, this levy in question has required operators to make a contribution between 1.1% and 0.1% of their remote gambling GGY, in support of public health drives and payer protection programs.⁶
Potential Impacts on the Industry
Once, and if, these changes are implemented, they could reverberate across the gambling industry as a whole, with a multitude of effects. The increase in tax rates could potentially reduce profit margins for operators, especially smaller-scale providers who run their company with stricter budgets. Operators could potentially change what they offer in their promotion section to make up for these increased costs, or they could even change something as minute as their loyalty scheme, potentially affecting the player experience as a result.
A ‘swings and roundabouts’ outlook would say there is still room for consolidation, which can sometimes work for whichever entities are involved. Smaller operators may find it difficult to absorb these higher tax rates without merging into larger companies. The only alternative if absorption isn’t on the cards for these smaller companies is to exit the market completely.
Even a minute increase in percentages in the Remote Gaming Duty could take a massive toll on operators’ EBITDA, thus affecting current investment decisions and future approaches to growth plans. The biggest hurdle is making sure that taxation stays fair without isolating players and pushing them offshore to more unregulated sites. These sites in question operate outside the UK jurisdiction on tax and player protection, so they’re effectively untouchable.
Lessons From International Models
Experimenting with gambling tax models is not the sole practice of the UK.
For example, Denmark has been using a flat 20% GGR tax for online operators, ensuring revenue is always predictable and their market position is kept stable.
Point-of-consumption taxation is being applied at state level by Australia, showing exactly how regional integration can work hand in hand with nationalised frameworks.
Contrastingly, France taxes its operators based on turnover, which influences how product strategy is affected and how its market grows.
Examples like the ones listed above show clearly that there are more ways than one to design gambling taxes in an effective way. The UK could consider these changes or elements thereof to improve its own systems to perform more efficiently, become more sustainable and support cross-industry fairness.
Challenges and Considerations
Even though higher taxation could increase public revenue, the challenges remain lucid.
Over-taxing has a chance of reducing competitiveness in-market, limiting innovation, and encouraging players to play at unlicensed sites offshore. All changes of any significance should always take into consideration the economic context more broadly, which includes forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility, which anticipates total betting and gaming duties of £3.8 billion in 2025–26.7
Balancing Revenue and Market Health
Making sure there is an impartial relationship between revenue generation with the long-term health of the market is a key balance to strike. Considerations must be made by policymakers towards both industry sustainability and player protection, securing the fact that all tax reforms will not inadvertently guide consumers towards greater risks or unregulated domains.
The Future of Gambling Taxation in the UK
Going beyond the here and now, there are many growing trends looking to reshape the future of UK gambling taxes. There is definitely a chance of greater synergy of duty rates to ensure a more simplified compliance, supplemented by the increase of statutory levies readily available to fund harm prevention schemes.
Gambling remotely has already accounted for close to half of the operational market, remaining and cementing itself as a focal point for tax reforms. Policymakers will aim to capitalise on this surging digital landscape and capture more revenue from remote gambling.
Before a harmonious relationship can be established, operators will need to ensure they are adaptable, investing in potential measures of efficiency, innovation of products, or even an even more robust compliance infrastructure to manage these higher taxes. Alongside this, there is a need for the Government to monitor the balance between revenue and market stability closely, making sure the UK stays attractive as a prospect for operators and players alike.
Conclusion: A Changing Landscape
Over the past decade, it is obvious that gambling taxation has changed dramatically. Now, with the point-of-consumption framework and Remote Gaming Duty, the landscape has appropriately reflected a highly regulated market. Looking further afield, motions for duty synergy, increased remote gambling rates, and, of course, the statutory levies indicate that further change is more than likely.
Even though these reforms have the potential to generate considerable revenue for the public and fund harm prevention schemes, potential risks are still here, posed towards operators and consumers. Once again, as soon as a balance is created between revenue, sustainability across the industry, and consumer protection, it will be a crucial landmark in the future. As the UK gambling tax system continues to press on and evolve, stakeholders need to stay informed and be on their toes as and when these changes eventually unfold.
Past debates have unscored and reminded us as a society that balance is not a new concern. Gordon Brown’s earlier proposals on gambling taxation highlight the tension between the rise in revenues and the responsibilities of safeguarding the industry.8 The Government has long been looking to shape this policy to fit the bill. This almost perpetual debate now shows exactly why stakeholders need to stay vigilant and adaptive as the UK gambling tax system constantly evolves.
References
- Point-of-Consumption Regulation for Remote Gambling, Written by UK Gambling Commission, Published by UK Gambling Commission.
- Remote Gaming Duty Increase to 21%, Written by HM Treasury, Published by GOV.UK.
- Remote Gambling GGY Report 2024, Written by UK Gambling Commission, Published by UK Gambling Commission.
- Racing Industry Warns Unified Duty Could Cost £40m, Written by Greg Wood, Published by The Guardian.
- Proposal to Raise Remote Gaming Duty to 50% Generating up to £2bn, Written by Social Market Foundation, Published by SMF.
- Statutory Levy for Gambling Harm Confirmed at 1.1% for Remote, Written by HM Treasury, Published by GOV.UK.
- Betting and Gaming Duties Forecast 2025–26, Written by Office for Budget Responsibility, Published by OBR.
- Gordon Brown: gambling tax could help fight child poverty, Written by Liam Hoofe, Published by CasinoTopsOnline
- Gordon Brown: gambling tax could help fight child poverty, Written by Liam Hoofe, Published by CasinoTopsOnline
