Is racing being taxed into decline, or just losing the argument?
The government says it’s about fairness. The racing tax says otherwise. With the Treasury’s consultation closing just recently on 21 July, betting on horse racing could soon be taxed like slot machines. Currently, remote betting, including racing, faces a 15 percent tax, while online gaming products, such as slots and roulette, are taxed at 21 percent. The so-called “racing tax” refers to the government’s proposed harmonisation of Remote Betting and Gaming Duty, which would merge these into a single rate, likely higher, under the banner of fairness. For the Exchequer, it’s efficient. For the sport, it could mean long-term decline. Critics warn that the racing tax rewards high-harm gambling while punishing skill-based play.
The BHA calls it a “budget bombshell.” Its economic modelling estimates that racing could lose up to ?160 million a year if Remote Betting Duty is aligned with gaming at the top end of proposed rates. It’s not just numbers. It’s jobs, local identities, and the viability of British racing itself. Right now, the sport helps fund the Exchequer. But if this goes ahead, it may do so at the cost of its own survival. But behind the headlines, a question lingers. Is British racing being unfairly targeted, or is it being outmanoeuvred?
What is the proposed racing tax?
The Treasury opened a 12-week consultation in May 2025, which closed at 23:59 on 21 July. The proposal is simple: harmonise both under a single rate. The likely outcome? A tax hike on betting. According to BHA modelling, a unified rate of 21 percent would cost racing around ?66 million annually. The BHA’s economic analysis estimates that, at a theoretical 40 percent duty rate, a speculative ceiling rather than the current government plan, racing could face annual losses of up to ?160 million.
The distinction between betting and gaming has existed since the 1960s. Racing fears that the tax distinction separating betting from gaming could be swept away in a single policy move.
What the BHA wants, and why it matters
The , backed by major stakeholders including the Jockey Club and the Racehorse Owners Association, calls for racing to be taxed separately and at a lower rate than gaming. The argument is largely economic. Betting on racing supports racecourses, rural employment, media rights, and the betting levy a statutory charge on bookmakers that funds prize money and underpins the racing industry. The BHA warns that flattening the tax rate risks flattening the entire ecosystem.
Attendance figures support their claim that racing remains culturally and economically significant. In the first six months of 2025, racing crowds were up by an average of 3.66 percent across the UK. Chester’s May meeting grew by 7.9 percent compared to last year. Chelmsford saw similar gains. recently documented the submission strategy and carried statements from the sport’s key voices, including course executives and industry groups.
Racecourse leaders like Louise Stewart (Chester) and Neil Graham (Chelmsford) say the danger is real. Stewart said her team had directly lobbied local MPs to warn that “racing isn’t quite the same as other forms of gambling.” Graham echoed the concern. “A racing tax will compound the issues created by affordability checks. It’s frustrating to be put in this position.”
The racing industry says the risk is real. The Treasury hasn’t blinked. Explore a SiGMA News full breakdown of the BHA’s submission and what it risks losing if the racing tax goes ahead.
Arguments for and against taxing racing differently
It’s not hard to understand why the industry is fighting for its corner. But not everyone agrees racing should get a break. Fans of the sport say betting’s a different beast altogether from gaming, and racing’s more than just a game as it puts real pounds in pockets. Critics counter that asking for an exemption, even with evidence, risks appearing entitled or out of touch, especially in a post-austerity climate.
The government argues that harmonisation promotes fairness, reduces regulatory complexity, and simplifies tax collection, potentially benefiting both operators and the Exchequer.
Racing commentator Greg Wood wrote in on 21 July 2025 that the BHA’s official stance sounds less like a defence and more like a polite request for an exception. If the goal is to argue racing’s unique social and economic role, then why hasn’t the campaign gone further? Why not tackle the wider question of what kinds of gambling Britain wants to incentivise?
Tax policy doesn’t just collect revenue. It reshapes priorities. Asking for an exemption risks political backlash. In an age of austerity, offering a tax break to horseracing may be harder to defend than ever. At the same time, MPs are voicing concern that gambling reforms are stalling. Parliament has reopened its inquiry into the Gambling Act review, citing a lack of clarity around affordability checks and tax direction.
We recently reported on this renewed scrutiny, which serves as a reminder that racing’s plea is landing in a political climate short on patience.
One tax, two very different products
Harmonisation flattens more than finances. It ignores the fundamental difference between betting and gaming. Betting, particularly on racing, involves risk, knowledge, and judgement. It is, as Graham put it, an “intellectual exercise.” Gaming products, such as slots, are designed to keep users spinning. They are entirely chance-based. And they are responsible for the majority of gambling-related harm.
According to the Gambling Commission’s 2024C2025 survey, users of online slots are six times more likely than the average user to have a harm score of 8 on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI).
So why treat the two products equally? Alcohol is taxed based on strength. Tobacco is taxed based on risk. Harmonising taxes across all gambling products ignores the distinction between skill and compulsion. That’s why critics fear the remote betting duty proposal could distort the market. If all products are taxed the same, operators may shift even more energy toward high-yield, high-harm gaming. And sports like racing will lose their last strategic foothold. We previously explored the black-market risk if racing’s funding model were to collapse, and the findings are alarming.
A smarter model is already on the table
This isn’t a debate with only two outcomes. Other options exist, and they deserve more airtime.
The Social Market Foundation’s proposal to double the gaming duty to 42 percent would raise nearly ?900 million per year. But politically, it’s radioactive. Operators won’t support it. Ministers risk looking anti-business. And unlike the racing tax, it targets the sector’s most lucrative verticals. That’s likely why racing is staying quiet, pushing for fairness while avoiding a fight with 바카라 giants.
Several European countries impose significant taxes on gambling revenues, although the exact mechanisms vary. Belgium applies an 11 percent gross gaming revenue (GGR) tax to licensed online operators, with progressive bands reaching up to 50 percent for land-based 바카라s and slot halls. Online 바카라 turnover is also subject to a 21 percent VAT. Sweden raised its GGR tax from 18 to 22 percent in July 2024. Finland’s draft legislation, expected to take effect from 2026C27, proposes a flat 22 percent GGR tax for all licensed verticals. Norway, meanwhile, maintains a strict state monopoly, with gambling limited to Norsk Tipping and Norsk Rikstoto; no private operator taxation exists under current law.
Given this diverse landscape, a risk-weighted, tiered duty system in the UK, where higher-harm, chance-based products face steeper taxes than skill-based betting, remains not only feasible but increasingly aligned with European precedent. So why isn’t the BHA pushing for this too? Because it knows that doing so might cost it access. Politics rarely rewards boldness unless it’s strategic. But in playing it safe, racing may be handing over the terms of debate. You can find more on this regulatory divide in a recent SiGMA News analysis of the All-Party Parliamentary Group’s (APPG) position.
The potential ?160 million loss threatens more than balance sheets. It risks rural employment, as racecourses are often key local employers and tourism drivers. Some smaller venues, already operating on tight margins, could face closure. The wider ecosystem, including trainers, owners, stable staff, and media rights holders, also stands to suffer, endangering a national institution embedded in communities from Doncaster to Cheltenham.
But tradition isn’t a business model
Let’s be clear. British racing is not just about bookmakers and betting slips. It’s a part of the national fabric, from Doncaster to Cheltenham. Racecourses create jobs, drive tourism in rural areas, and give a proud identity to regions often left behind. But tradition doesn’t pay the bills.
If racing wants special treatment, it must show exceptional value, not just in attendance or economic output, but in leadership. That means engaging in the wider conversation about gambling risk, tax logic, and long-term public interest.
Being different is not enough. If racing wants a break, it better prove it brings more than nostalgia.
What this is really about
This is more than a tax issue. It’s a question of what kind of gambling Britain chooses to support. Harmonisation may sound like fairness. But fairness isn’t always flat. Betting and gaming are different. Treating them as one may simplify the tax code, but it complicates the future of every sport and town that depends on betting revenue. The Treasury should consider the risk. So should racing.
The case for separation can be made, but not from a place of panic. It must be made from a place of purpose. Because the risk of doing nothing isn’t just higher taxes. It’s a long-term decline. If the Treasury moves forward without adjusting course and if racing continues to argue from a position of survival instead of strategy, the sport will not only lose money but also its competitive edge. It could also lose its influence, its partnerships, and its place.
Now is the time to decide what kind of gambling future Britain wants to fund and whether racing still belongs in it. A smarter system doesn’t just tax what’s popular; it considers what’s harmful, what’s sustainable, and what’s in the public interest. If Britain wants a future for both racing and responsible gambling, a one-size-fits-all duty isn’t the answer. Risk-weighted, evidence-led reform is.
Key takeaways
- Racing is calling for betting on its sport to be taxed differently from online 바카라s and slots.
- If Remote Betting and Gaming Duty is unified at 21 percent or higher, the sport could lose up to ?160 million annually.
- Slots and 바카라 games cause more harm, yet the government may still tax them the same as skill-based betting.
- The BHA’s public response has emphasised economic survival, but critics warn this lacks moral clarity or broader reform leadership.
- Without a more innovative, risk-weighted tax model, operators may double down on high-yield, high-harm gaming and shift away from betting-funded sports, such as racing.
Timeline
- MayCJuly 2025 C Treasury consultation on Remote Betting & Gaming Duty (closed 21 July); BHA commissions modelling.
- 19 July 2025 C BHA submits formal industry response.
- 22 July 2025 C Consultation closes; Treasury begins analysis.
- October 2025 C Autumn Budget expected; decision on racing tax likely.
- 2026 onward C Industry braces for funding reform and possible duty changes.
