How the Remote Betting and Gaming Duty Proposal Would Shake Up the UK’s Gambling Taxation Situation

If any market/jurisdiction is to have a lucrative agreement with its population’s gambling desires, it must have just as lucrative an agreement with the operators that provide these gambling services. As we all know, any state-sanctioned and operated methods of keeping a market under control also include a very important taxation policy.

As we know, the British market is under the very watchful eye of the UKGC, which has allowed it to have some of the most well-respected profiles in the world. Although the market itself is not as populous as some of the established or emergent markets worldwide, it rakes in an enormous amount of money.

In theory, it would appear that the current legislation model works well. Ever since the 2005 Gambling Act came into effect, there have been plenty of reasons to think that things are as good as they are. However, consistent white papers and amendments have constantly added to this model already — an inevitability caused by technological advancements that have made this medium quite unrecognizable.

Taxation is the latest entry into the Government’s desire to shake things up. As the central authorities start to look into levies and duties, they’ve identified the need to make the gambling taxation process a bit more tenable, efficient, and, most importantly in their eye, more efficient.

What does this project entail?

In the official consultation paper on the tax treatment of remote gambling, the authorities published a 33-page presentation on the current and prospective situations on the matter of duties to showcase and bring arguments for this proposal. In this sense, the initiative is a democratic process that aims to see the upsides of what a new taxation policy would achieve.

In a nutshell, the idea behind this project is to create a ‘single remote gambling tax’ that would bring all kinds of betting and remote gambling under a single percent. Per the aforementioned consultation document, the current POC (place of consumption) framework would be the basis of the project, and the proposed gambling duties would allow businesses to continue to have ‘clear rules to follow, enabling them to correctly identify relevant transactions and pay the right amount of tax.’

Furthermore, it would equalise the language and clarify all the remote gambling typologies that would be direct contributors to this gambling levy. It would also allow taxation to be very clear in the case of elements like free bets, given that, from an official standpoint, they have ‘a notional value that a bookmaker must include in their duty calculation. '

Naturally, the project’s consultations, a process that went on between the 28th of April and the 21st of July of 2025.

This means that a considerable number of questions were to generate answers that would shape the initiative. In the consultation document’s Annex A, 19 questions were listed, with technical entries on the taxation model’s details, but also questions regarding concerns like migration to unsanctioned (illegal) platforms, prospective changes in operator business models, and possible liability concerns.

Current figures

As crucial context, the numbers associated with gambling figures show an immense shift towards remote gambling, which would explain the prevalence of such an initiative. The aforementioned document, which does an admittedly good job of presenting contextual evidence on the theoretical importance of this proposal, showcases a couple of tables that give us incredibly important data.

Per the UKGC’s November 2024 statistical report, premise-based (on-site) gambling decreased in gross gambling yield from 5.4 to 4.6 billion pounds (a 14% drop), while active premises decreased from circa 11,615 to 8,329, which is a 28%. This data applies up to the 2024 fiscal year and takes into account data starting in 2015.

As far as the remote gambling GGY goes, the rise is dramatic. We are seeing a rise from £4.23 billion to almost £6.9 billion, which is dramatic, to say the least, especially when you consider that this rise represents a 63% increase.

What do we want to look into when it comes to taxation?

• Pool betting has the very same taxation figure as fixed odds betting, which is at the 15% mark.
• In the case of remote gaming, as per the current terminology and definitions, the current rate is a higher 21%. The current percentage used to be 15% as well, but a 2019 increase sowed further taxation divide that the Chancellory appears to consider necessary to close.

What the industry’s representatives think

This must be the most contentious part of the discussion because there is a clear conflict between the interests of the industry and the need to cover an immense fiscal deficit from a Labour government that is ultimately facing immense economic pressure from trade relation instabilities, armed conflicts, and other issues that are seemingly motivating such a measure.

Let’s begin with parties that are in favour of this initiative. A good example would be the former Labour PM Gordon Brown, who is a staunchly pro-higher-taxation voice who considers that, if considered and done right, a levy for gambling or banking can lead to generated revenue of more than £3 billion.

Moreover, even the Social Market Foundation, a think-tank without bipartisan allegiances, finds a raised gambling levy to be able to net more than £2 billion in additional revenue, which would add to a more than £3.4 billion revenue from the current gambling taxation model.

On the other side of the spectrum, one of the loudest voices that speaks against this initiative is Grainne Hurst, a representative of the Betting and Gaming Council. They were incredibly candid when assessing the possible outlook, claiming that a rise in duty would ‘simply jeopardise contributions,’ referring to the impact that these funds have on overall growth, the job market, and other factors.

Hurst made other points known in the public discourse, considering that operators would rather move operations offshore, or alienate bettors from regulated actors, increasing the chances of risk. Given that such movement, in her mind, would also impact the workforce (job-cutting) and overall revenue.

Another voice, coming from the British Horseracing Authority, is that of Greg Swift, the institution's director. In short, he considers that the possibility of the horse racing betting market having to pay as much as the high-revenue branches of the gambling industry would be disastrous, causing unintended consequences that would greatly damage the finances and workforce elements of this sector.

What can we expect going forward?

The point about the appeal of offshore operations would certainly make sense. In its effort to collate the mass offering of the betting industry at large, BetBrain identifies outstanding nuances and competition from the offshore market, including via free bets and play, which are already points of discussion per the consultation’s agenda.

As such, there are points of concern that would certainly be relevant for both sides of the argument. You would think that uniform taxing, even if it’s higher, makes things easy for everyone, and the immense market growth of remote gambling in the UK means that the consumer base is ready and willing to continue to bet, which means that there is an engine of GGY that can finance this process.

However, the idea that operators would be willing to pay higher duties is simply hard to conceive without a fight, especially given how restrictive the UK is with its rulebook. In the interest of a fair market, there are plenty of theoretical arguments to give against higher taxation, but the leverage of contribution seems to remain their most important weapon.

As of the writing of this article, the consultations have ended relatively recently. Drawn conclusions and further negotiation elements ought to come out at some point, which could set the stage for new movement on the global market, especially with the UK’s highly influential legislative approach.