Analysis

UK Budget reflection: Was land-based gambling truly spared?

Last week's Autumn Budget saw Chancellor Rachel Reeves up remote gaming duty yet spare betting shops and scrap bingo duty. But will the knock-on effects of the Budget override those mercies?

· 5 min read
Share this article
Follow us on Google
AI Summary
Sign in to listen
budet-land-based
Key Points
Impact on jobs likely - but what about the impact on players?
Short-term thinking isn't leading to long-term improvements

No one wants to be the least favourite child, but it happens; and in the Budget, it was clear this was the online casino industry. The 40% tax figure has been impossible to avoid since it was leaked by the OBR and, on the surface level, it seems like an easy dunk.

Protecting the High Street?

According to the latest Gambling Commission FY25, online casinos made £5bn ($6.6bn) in GGY, compared to £933.8m from land-based casinos and £640.4m from non-remote bingo. Online casinos also have less staff, sundries and bills to pay, and on paper they can afford a 40% tax rate.

But that does not make the Budget any less striking. To almost quote Dr Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park, "your financial advisors were so preoccupied with whether or not they 'could' that they didn't stop to think if they 'should.'"

To Reeves' credit, she is keeping land-based operations at their current rate and scrapping bingo duty altogether. This will go a long way in protecting UK high street jobs, especially for smaller operators that don't have online operations to offset any headwinds. This decision was celebrated by many in the industry, especially after the months of lobbying to protect these sectors.

We've saved the UK jobs, we all cry at once - but is this really true?

The inevitable impact

Multiple operators have already warned that increasing online taxes will still lead to job losses, including those based on the High Street. Flutter has already announced the closure of 57 shops across the UK and Ireland, with 250 jobs on the line and now many more at risk. Not to mention companies potentially less incentivised to invest in the UK space with such unfavourable tax rates.

For the sake of the narrative, however, let's put on our rose-tinted glasses and say that no jobs will be lost. We've protected all of the UK jobs that were under threat from this Budget. But have we protected the players? Well, still no.

Chancellor Reeves said "remote casinos are more associated with harm" than other forms of gambling, which is why this sector has been targeted with such a steep increase. Going back to the FY25 industry statistics, 75.2% of non-remote casinos' GGY comes from casino table games, which require people to socialise with the dealer and often the other players at the table. By comparison, 83.5% of online casino GGY came from slots. If they were targeting the lonely player, they were spot on.

It's much harder to walk into an unlicensed land-based operation than it is to stumble across an offshore online casino. In a recent study by Deal Me Out, only 10 out of 194 members of the public could correctly identify regulated casino websites from unregulated ones, meaning the risk of players accidentally (or deliberately) playing on these sites is eye-wateringly high.

A lack of deterrent

The "potential substitution to the illicit market," as the Budget worded it, has about the same level of potential as the sun setting this evening and rising again in the morning. It is already happening and the latest figures estimate at least £2bn a year is lost to the black market; £2bn a year that could be taxed and put to good causes within the UK, but now can't.

If a player joins an illegal site because they want to use a bonus not offered by legitimate casinos, and they get on with the platform, what is stopping them from moving the rest of their betting activity over there? These sites offer sports betting, much larger game libraries and even illegal streams of games that players may struggle to find elsewhere.

This Budget has promised land-based operators and the horseracing industry that it acknowledges the leaks in their respective toy boats and is doing everything it can to keep them afloat; all while ripping the plug out of the bottom of the bath and letting the GGY drain away to unlicensed and untaxed offshore entities.

It doesn't really make sense, does it?

Good to know

Super Group went against the grain and welcomed the UK Budget, potentially as its international operations are impacted far less by the market than the likes of Flutter Entertainment, Entain, Rank Group and more

Reaction Board

News Analysis

View All
Codere acquisition

Codere sale: Could splitting the group unlock buyer interest?

Codere's individual business divisions are reportedly attracting greater interest from potential buyers than the group as a whole. Following years of financial restructuring and a successful turnaround, can its investors finally cash in on the recovery?

4 min read • • By Marieta Lezaic
olga-slotegrator

Inception to implementation: Building new foundations in online gaming

Slotegrator COO Olga Ivanchik reflects on her first year with the organisation, drawing on key implementations and strategies that have helped drive innovation as part of a new era at the company.

4 min read • • By Will Underwood
The new kings of US election donations

The new kings of US election donations: AI, crypto and sports betting

During this year's US midterm election cycle, corporate donations reached a record of $648m, with crypto, AI and online betting companies accounting for $344m.

6 min read • • By Patrick Fasolis

In The News

View All