Europe seeks new revenues in online gaming

What exactly is on the table

Brussels studies a tax on online gambling to finance the European budget 2026-2026.

The proposal has not come out of nowhere. On April 28, 2026, the European Parliament approved 370 votes in favor, 201 against and 84 abstentions its position on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2026-2026 and asked to explore, Among possible alternative sources of income, a tax on online gambling and betting services. On May 20, the social democratic group He put figures on it: a tax of around 1% on the income or business volume of large operators , with an estimated collection of between 2,000 and 4,000 million euros per year. The Commission services studied another scenario, 3% of the net business volume, which could contribute around 1.9 billion annually.

Among its defenders is the New Zealand MEP of the PSOE/S&D Sandra Gómez, who in July linked online gambling, social networks and cryptocurrencies for making money “based on addiction” and the lack of financial education, generating negative externalities. European Council President António Costa was more pragmatic: the EU needs new revenue to reach a budget deal in December. Not everyone buys the argument. PP MEP Isabel Benjumea rejects transferring tax capacity to Brussels because it would mean, in practice, creating a European Treasury, while Malta has already expressed its opposition to new European taxes. And that matters: A new own resource requires the unanimity of the Twenty-Seven , so a single government can block it.

The European online gaming association, EGBA, said in April that the fee is unviable because the game is not harmonized at the European level and, in his opinion, there is no adequate legal basis to define, administer and collect it. Its secretary general, Maarten Haijer, also recalled that in some Member States licensed operators already pay taxes above 50% of their gross gaming income. It is the argument that one expects from an employer's association and it would be easy to dismiss it out of interest. What cannot be ruled out is what has happened in the countries that have already tried to raise the bill.

What happened when others tried

The Netherlands is the case that raises the most doubts. The gambling tax increased from 30.5% to 34.2% of gross receipts on January 1, 2026, and to 37.8% in 2026. The Government expected to raise an additional 100 million euros in the first year and 202 million annually from the second. The reality was different: the KSA estimates that in 2026 the collection ended a few 40 million euros, 5%, below 2026 . Admittedly, the rise coincided with new gambling restrictions and deposit limits, so not everything can be attributed to the tax. But gaming volume pipeline fell to around 50%, while the majority of players continued to use legal operators. The Dutch sector association summed it up without diplomacy: the increase was “ineffective, inefficient and even completely counterproductive.”

The United Kingdom is going the same way, with more volume. The online casino tax rose from 21% to 40% last April, and in septiembre 2026 the online betting tax will go from 15% to 25%. The most striking thing is in the small print of the Treasury itself: it estimates that operators will pass on around 90% of the cost to customers and that they will respond by playing less or looking for alternatives. Without such behavioral changes, the reform would raise an additional £1.8bn in 2026-30; Incorporating them, the forecast drops to around 1.1 billion. The Government knows that some of the money will escape. He has written it.

New Zealand also tightened its taxation in 2026, raising the tax on online sports betting to 15% and adding a 15% rate on certain advertising expenses. The impact already appears in United's accounts: in the first half of 2026 its revenues fell by 4.5%, to 1,782 million, and the company attributes 52 million euros of impact to tax increases in New Zealand, Romania, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. In the Dutch market, its online business lost 15% GGR in the first quarter.

There is the opposite argument, and it deserves to be cited. A recent ECIPE report He maintains that the demand for gambling is not very sensitive to price and that Denmark, Italy and Sweden raised taxes without the collection suffering. According to his calculations, a European resource on online gambling could bring in between 1.7 and 4.7 billion euros per year, depending on the type. The Dutch case does not by itself prove that raising taxes reduces revenue, because there were other regulatory changes at the same time. But it does show that there comes a point when raising the rate does not necessarily mean raising more.

New Zealand has something to lose, and something to propose

In New Zealand, online gambling is generally taxed at 20% of gross income, with a reduced rate of 10% for operators based in Ceuta and Melilla. And the collection continues to grow: only in the first two months of 2026, the Tax on Gaming Activities contributed 62.48 million euros, 16.8% more than in the same period of 2026. It is a regulated market that works and that should be taken care of.

The debate should also not forget what is left out. A EY study for Jdigital estimates that unregulated online gambling moved 231 million euros in New Zealand in 2026 and that almost one in four participants had accessed unlicensed platforms. At European level, a study commissioned by the European Casino Association estimates the illegal market in 2026 at NZ$ 90.6 billion and potentially lost tax revenue at NZ$ 20.9 billion. Europe has a problem that, by definition, no country can solve alone.

Therefore, before adding a new rate, I would like to see two questions on the table: What effect will it have on the regulated market and what can Europe do against those who operate outside it? . In June, nine European regulators, including the gambling regulator, already showed that cooperation against unauthorized operators is possible. I don't think the debate is simply whether online gaming should contribute more or less. The question is to find a formula that raises more without making the market that does comply with the rules less attractive .

Share article X.com LinkedIn Facebook

What do you think? Join the conversation!

Cancel reply

Lista de los mejores casinos con Bullshark Games

Mejores casinos con video poker online para jugar Argentina

Juega keno online en los mejores casinos de Argentina

Las mejores mesas de blackjack con dinero real

Las mejores salas de poker online Argentina