- Cumbres
- Noticias
- Fundaci¨®n SiGMA
- Formaci¨®n y asesoramiento
- Tour de p¨®quer
- Sobre nosotros
Intenso debate pol¨ªtico en torno a la reforma tributaria sobre las apuestas y los juegos remotos
Etiquetas:
Remote betting duty reform could cost bookmakers up to ?160 million (€188 million) a year on racing bets alone, according to financial modelling from the BHA. Stakeholders say duty rates between twenty-one and forty percent may force operators to scale back or exit racing entirely.
What is the remote betting duty really for?
The purpose of the gambling tax remains a subject of contention. Is it designed to raise funds, steer behaviour, or cover social harm? Depending on the answer, the correct rate may differ. Consumer advocacy groups have long called for clearer oversight, though most have not issued formal positions on the current consultation. Previous warnings from advocacy groups suggest that overly aggressive reform could drive players offshore, worsening the harms they aim to prevent.
Labour MP Alex Ballinger supports harmonisation, arguing that “harmful types of gambling should pay more for the costs they’re causing to the community.” But even he warns that merging duties could nudge operators to push players toward high-margin ë°”ì¹´ë¼ products, thereby undermining the policy’s intent.
Britain’s channelisation challenge
The UK’s channelisation rate remains strong, between 92 and 98 percent, but is fragile. In France, player retention rates plummeted below 60 percent following unpopular reforms. In Brazil, a six-point tax rise triggered immediate compliance pushback. Stakeholders warn Britain could face similar risks if players feel pushed out. Decades of regulatory refinement brought Britain one of the world’s safest gambling markets. Industry leaders now fear that taking blunt fiscal shortcuts with the remote betting duty could erode the hard-won balance. Earlier industry responses to the UK racing tax proposal reveal widespread concern that higher rates will undermine channelisation.
A crossroads for British gambling
The Treasury’s consultation on remote betting duty has highlighted a key regulatory tension: the need for administrative simplicity versus effective market control. Chancellor Rachel Reeves must now decide whether a unified duty will protect or weaken the legal market.
The evidence presented during the consultation paints a clear picture. A unified remote betting duty set at 바카ë¼-game rates would likely trigger the very behaviours the Government seeks to prevent, driving players toward unregulated operators, undermining the sport of racing, and potentially reducing overall tax revenue. The 522 percent surge in black market activity since 2021 demonstrates that players will migrate when legal options become uncompetitive.
Yet the existing system isn’t sustainable either. The current three-tier system creates complexity and potential loopholes that harmonisation could address. Finding balance means cutting through red tape without compromising the industry’s economic backbone. The BHA has already raised the alarm over a 522 percent surge in illegal horseracing betting since 2021.
The horse racing industry’s warnings carry particular weight. Unlike ë°”ì¹´ë¼ or slots, racing relies on a fragile mix of betting revenue, media rights, and sponsorship, and it can’t take the same financial hit. Over ?350 million (€411 million) flows back into racing each year via the levy system, supporting thousands of jobs, from stable hands to jockeys. A deep tax shock threatens more than economics. It risks dismantling a national institution.
The delicate path ahead
This may matter most not for its outcome, but for the debate it has triggered around Britain’s gambling tax philosophy. The Autumn Budget in October will now serve as a reckoning point for whether the Government can thread the needle between revenue, regulation, and responsibility.
The industry has made its case. The data is precise. The risks are known. Now, it is up to Treasury ministers to show whether they’ve truly been listening.
