UK gambling tax rises require a more coordinated industry response, according to Poppleston Allen partner and gambling solicitor Richard Bradley. He believes trade bodies could strengthen their case by identifying areas where they can speak collectively.
Bradley urged organisations including the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC), Bacta and the Bingo Association to consider where their interests overlap as the sector faces further uncertainty over taxation.
His argument is not that bookmakers, bingo operators and gaming businesses need to agree on every issue. Instead, Bradley believes common concerns should be supported by credible evidence and presented collectively, rather than allowing the wider argument to become lost among competing figures and individual campaigns.
The timing is significant. Remote Gaming Duty increased from 21% to 40% in April 2026, while a new 25% rate for remote betting is due to take effect in April 2027. Remote bets on UK horseracing are excluded from the new rate and will remain at 15%.
Attention has now shifted towards land-based gambling and the possibility of further changes to Machine Games Duty (MGD).
Could a United Response Strengthen the Case Against UK Gambling Tax Rises
The UK gambling industry has several trade organisations representing different parts of the sector. Bradley believes greater cooperation could strengthen their position when government policy affects businesses across those boundaries.
Speaking to SBC News, he said:
“The important point is not simply presenting a louder argument; it is presenting a clearer and better evidenced one.”
Bradley argues taxation should not be considered separately from employment costs, investment and the viability of high-street premises. Where the same government decision affects several of those areas, he believes the industry has a stronger case for examining the cumulative impact.
He added:
“Where there is common ground, a consolidated approach supported by credible data is likely to be more useful than a collection of competing headline figures or arguments made independently of one another.”
The distinction is important. Bradley is not calling for a single gambling trade body or suggesting different sectors should abandon their individual interests. His proposal is greater coordination, in which bookmakers, bingo operators, amusement businesses and other gambling companies face the same pressures.
Could Better Evidence Strengthen the Industry’s Case?
Gambling trade bodies have repeatedly warned about the potential consequences of higher taxation, including shop closures, job losses, reduced investment and greater use of unregulated gambling.
Bradley accepts many of the underlying concerns but questions whether the industry’s case is always presented effectively.
He told SBC that trade bodies should rely on robust figures and explain the evidence behind them. Bradley believes the industry would make a stronger case by demonstrating how further cost increases could affect the long-term viability of betting shops, rather than suggesting widespread closures are inevitable. Smaller operators, with less capacity to absorb rising costs, could face increasing pressure.
Recent warnings demonstrate the wider problems.
Betfred founder Fred Done believes betting shops could disappear from UK high streets by 2030. Betfred has estimated that increasing the standard MGD rate to 40% would result in another 495 shop closures.
Bradley takes a more measured position.
“I would be cautious about describing it as doomsday.”
Rather than dismissing the pressures facing retail gambling, Bradley believes businesses will respond differently. Some may close premises, while others will attempt to adapt.
A coordinated industry case could therefore concentrate less on the most dramatic prediction and more on demonstrating how taxation, wages, regulation and other costs interact across different businesses.
Different Sectors, Common Pressures
Greater coordination does not mean every gambling sector faces the same tax position.
Remote Gaming Duty is now charged at 40%, while the new 25% remote betting rate takes effect in April 2027. The government abolished Bingo Duty in April 2026.
Machine Games Duty operates separately. Its current rates are 5% for qualifying lower-rate machines, 20% for standard-rate machines, and 25% for machines where the maximum cost to play can exceed £5.
Those differences give the BGC, Bacta and Bingo Association distinct priorities. However, their members share exposure to employment costs, investment decisions, regulation and the health of land-based gambling businesses.
A bookmaker and bingo club may have different commercial concerns, but both employ staff, occupy physical premises and operate gaming machines. An adult gaming centre faces another set of circumstances, but changes to MGD can affect businesses across several areas of the land-based sector.
A collective response could therefore demonstrate the cumulative effect of policy changes without insinuating every operator faces the same circumstances.
What are Higher Taxes Intended to Achieve?
Bradley raises another important question: what outcome is government policy trying to achieve?
The government said its 2025 gambling duty reforms were intended to increase tax revenue while recognising the differences between remote and land-based gambling.
The HM Treasury acknowledged that land-based gambling supports greater employment and said the reforms were concentrated on remote gambling.
Bradley argues that further increases require similar consideration of their wider consequences.
If higher taxation results in businesses closing premises or reducing investment, he questions whether the additional revenue expected by government would materialise to the same extent.
That is his assessment rather than a settled conclusion about the economic effect of rising gambling taxes. It does, however, explain why he wants trade bodies to develop their arguments beyond individual headline figures.
For him, the starting point is to establish precisely what policymakers are trying to address and to produce evidence relevant to that objective.
One Voice the Whole Industry Agrees
The BGC, Bacta and Bingo Association represent different sectors of an industry with competing interests, so complete agreement would be unrealistic.
His proposal is considerably simpler: identify the issues where interests converge, establish credible evidence and communicate those arguments collectively.
With Remote Gaming Duty already at a 40% high, a new remote betting rate approaching in 2027 and further scrutiny of MGD, the industry faces several significant tax changes.
With further UK gambling tax rises still under discussion, the sectors may not agree on everything. On taxation, employment and investment, however, a coordinated case could prove far more effective than several competing voices.