The UK affiliate market has never exactly been short on drama, but the incoming tax changes feel different. With remote gaming duty set to rise to 40% from April 2026 – almost double the previous 21% rate – operators are staring down a meaningful margin squeeze. Add in broader duty reforms and an increasingly complex compliance landscape, and it’s clear that the economics underpinning affiliate deals are being rewritten.
For years, the debate between CPA and revenue share has been framed as a question of preference, risk appetite or cash flow strategy. Now, it feels more existential. When the taxman takes a significantly bigger slice of gross gaming revenue, the way value is shared between operator and affiliate inevitably comes under scrutiny. The question isn’t simply “Which model pays more?”, it’s “Which model still makes sense in a 40% duty world?”
The romance of revenue share – does it need a reality check?
Revenue share has long been the affiliate-sector darling. There’s something inherently attractive about building a portfolio of players that generate recurring income month after month. RevShare also aligns incentives very neatly; affiliates drive quality traffic, operators retain and monetise players, and both sides benefit from long-term value.
In a lower-tax environment, that alignment felt natural. If an operator was comfortable with healthy margins, paying 30% to 40% of NGR to a trusted affiliate partner could still leave plenty of room for profitability. But once 40% of gross revenue is removed at source via duty, that same RevShare percentage starts to look far more expensive. The pie hasn’t just shrunk; it’s been aggressively sliced before affiliates even enter the equation.
This is where we’ll likely see the biggest cultural shift. RevShare deals that once felt generous may quietly become rarer in the UK market, or at least less generous. Industry commentary already suggests operators are reassessing long-term revenue commitments as tax pressures mount. That doesn’t mean RevShare is dead – but it may no longer be the default badge of honour it once was.
For affiliates, that’s uncomfortable. RevShare has been synonymous with “quality over quantity” – with building assets rather than chasing quick wins. But in a compressed-margin environment, operators may look at lifetime revenue commitments and see open-ended liabilities rather than partnerships.
So which model is “more suitable” after the tax rise? The honest answer is that suitability is becoming situational
CPA: The comeback kid?
If revenue share is under pressure, CPA suddenly looks refreshingly straightforward. One player, one payment, clean accounting. In a high-tax environment, predictability is gold. Operators can model their cost per acquisition against revised lifetime value assumptions and keep their marketing spend tightly controlled.
From a purely commercial standpoint, that makes sense. When margins shrink, CFOs gravitate towards certainty. CPA offers exactly that. There’s no lingering revenue tail, no long-term obligation that grows more painful if player performance outperforms expectations. It’s transactional, contained and easier to scale up or down.
But let’s not romanticise CPA either. For affiliates, it shifts the burden of sustainability. You’re only as strong as your next cohort of players. There’s no long-term revenue cushion, no steady drip-feed of income from players acquired years ago. In a volatile regulatory market like the UK, that’s a risk of a different kind.
That said, there’s a fair chance that CPA is likely to enjoy a resurgence – particularly for affiliates operating in faster-moving acquisition channels. When capital recycling matters and regulatory winds can change quickly, locking in guaranteed payments can be a rational strategy.
Hybrids, leverage and the new negotiation era
If there’s one thing the UK market rarely does, it’s stay static. We’re likely heading towards a more nuanced middle ground rather than a binary shift. Hybrid models – blending a modest CPA with a trimmed RevShare percentage – feel tailor-made for this moment. They allow operators to cap upfront risk while still rewarding affiliates for delivering genuinely high-value players.
The real differentiator, however, will be leverage. Affiliates who can prove compliance, transparency and strong lifetime value metrics will still command attention. In a tighter market, quality becomes currency. Operators under tax pressure cannot afford risky or low-performing traffic sources. That reality may ultimately strengthen the position of established, data-driven affiliates, even if headline RevShare percentages soften.
The UK tax rise is therefore less about killing one model and more about forcing (potentially difficult) conversations. For a long time, commission structures have sometimes been inherited rather than interrogated. Now, every percentage point will be scrutinised. Every deal will need to justify itself against a harsher fiscal backdrop.
So which model is “more suitable” after the tax rise? The honest answer is that suitability is becoming situational. CPA may dominate for operators seeking cost control. RevShare will survive where genuine long-term value is demonstrable. Hybrids could become the diplomatic compromise both sides can live with.
What feels certain is that loyalty to a single model for ideological reasons is becoming harder to defend. In a 40% duty market, flexibility isn’t just desirable – it’s essential. Affiliates who adapt their deal structures as quickly as operators adapt their balance sheets will likely be the ones still standing when the dust settles.