Could the EU budget impact iGaming? Von der Leyen’s €2tn plan explained
A new €2 trillion EU budget proposal from could reshape how Europe taxes its largest industries, and the EU budget impact on iGaming may be bigger than expected. Designed to reshape how the bloc raises revenue, the plan introduces a corporate tax on companies earning more than €100 million per year. This is a move that could catch many operators, suppliers, and networks in its net. While gambling isn’t named directly, the implications for cross-border firms are already drawing attention across compliance desks.
New revenue, old tensions
Announced on 16 July and formally presented to Parliament the following day, the aims to plug growing fiscal holes, from climate and defence to migration and Ukraine, without demanding more from national governments. To do that, Brussels is seeking five new revenue-raising schemes, including:
- A corporate tax on companies with over €100 million turnover
- Expansion of the EU carbon border levy
- Levies on tobacco and electronic waste
- Greater take from the EU Emissions Trading System
- Continued customs revenue sharing
The proposed tax, part of the EU’s new Corporate Resource for Europe (CORE) scheme, is designed to raise €6.8 billion annually from companies with a net turnover of over €100 million.
For most industries, that’s straightforward. However, in the context of gambling, “turnover” has multiple meanings, ranging from bet volume to gross gaming revenue (GGR) to net corporate revenue. EU documentation defines “turnover” as net corporate revenue, not betting handle or stake volume. In the gambling industry, this likely translates to gross gaming revenue (GGR). But without a formal definition in the final legislation, operators are left relying on assumptions, and in tax policy, assumption is a liability.
What the EU budget means for iGaming by 2028
If approved, the CORE tax would take effect from January 2028, providing operators with a three-year lead time to assess their exposure and restructure if necessary. That may sound generous on paper, but for iGaming groups managing multiple licences, entities, and jurisdictions, it’s already close.
Early scenario planning will be crucial, given the potential impact of the EU budget on iGaming operations and compliance timelines. But fiscal pressure isn’t the only challenge buried in the budget. What follows may prove just as disruptive, and harder to predict. First comes the tax. Then the lawyers. Then the accountants. Restructuring might mean renaming entities, rerouting internal revenue streams, or rewriting how systems report across borders. One by one, threads of the iGaming web must be retied, and the cost of each stitch could cross six figures.
For context, a mid-sized operator with €1 billion in revenue could face a CORE tax liability of approximately €750,000 per year. However, the broader cost of compliance, restructuring, and national taxes may push the figure closer to €2–5 million. By comparison, a tier-one sportsbook with a net turnover of €3–5 billion could face CORE liabilities of between €2.25 million and €3.75 million per year. For high-volume affiliates, the impact may be lower in absolute terms, but it is proportionally more disruptive due to tighter margins.
This doesn’t just affect tier-one giants. Any operator licensed in Malta, Cyprus, Estonia, or Gibraltar, but generating substantial revenue from EU member states, could fall within the scope. The same applies to B2B providers offering CRM platforms (for player retention and targeting), payment orchestration (multi-gateway payment routing), affiliate technology, or live dealer infrastructure. Stack up the group earnings, and suddenly those ‘small’ affiliate networks and white-label brands aren’t so small — they’re crossing the €100 million line.
It’s not just the big names at risk
Preliminary SiGMA News analysis suggests that dozens of iGaming-related companies, including operators, suppliers, and affiliate networks, may already exceed the €100 million revenue threshold, depending on how group earnings and turnover are defined in the final legislation. Smaller affiliates operating under white-label EU hubs, particularly in emerging markets like the Balkans, Africa, or LATAM, could also face indirect exposure if group structures or shared infrastructure bring them under a larger compliance umbrella. These structural pressures are part of the broader impact of the EU budget on iGaming, which many in the sector have yet to fully assess.
While tax remains the core headline, this budget also signals deeper regulatory convergence in the region. For iGaming operators with exposure in Eastern Europe or Ukraine, whether through affiliate traffic, regional licences, or cross-border payments, these geopolitical shifts could quietly redefine risk and reporting obligations.
The legislative language is not yet final. Trade groups such as EGBA are expected to engage heavily before the final vote, offering operators a short window to influence definitions and exemptions.
Will the tax even pass?
Since the Commission unveiled the proposal on 16 July, member states and MEPs have pushed back hard. Germany and the Netherlands, both crucial to EU budget negotiations, have rejected the idea outright, with German CDU leader Friedrich Merz stating, “The European Union has no legal basis for this. We are not doing that.”
Even the European People’s Party, led by Ursula von der Leyen, has joined the resistance. Monika Hohlmeier, Vice Chair of the Budget Committee, called the tax “in direct contrast with efforts to boost competitiveness.”
Critics argue it unfairly penalises firms regardless of profit. The opposition spans both fiscally conservative and moderate camps. Even in Italy, Fratelli d’Italia MEPs described the move as “mowing down” the very firms Brussels claims to support. The tax may never pass, at least in this form. But the visibility of gambling firms in the debate has already increased, and the legislative groundwork for future EU revenue-grabs is now on paper.
Border tensions, carbon costs, and compliance creep
Tax grabs the headlines, but it’s not the only thing stirring. For operators in places like Ukraine or the EU’s eastern frontier, the real friction might come from the subtle shifts in how Brussels perceives its borders, and who is playing by which rules.
The plan allocates:
- €100 billion allocated to Ukraine
- Tripled funding for migration and border control
- A fivefold increase in defence
- A doubling of the research budget, with 35 percent ringfenced for climate and biodiversity
Operators using Malta, Estonia, or Cyprus as European licensing hubs for activity in neighbouring countries may face enhanced scrutiny as geopolitical priorities filter into financial and regulatory policy. As cooperation with Ukraine deepens, even informal convergence may steer the gambling sector toward stricter anti-money laundering standards, more rigorous KYC, and tighter cross-border payment protocols. These policy shifts extend beyond taxation. Brussels’ environmental agenda could create unexpected cost centres for tech-dependent gambling firms.
Before 2028 creeps any closer, operators would be wise to follow the money — literally. Start mapping revenue across your entities, clarifying how “corporate turnover” applies to your setup, and make sure what’s visible on paper won’t trip you up in practice. EGBA and national associations are expected to push for clarification before 2028, so policy teams should closely monitor their developments. Hardware-dependent suppliers, including live 바카라 platforms, biometric ID providers, and those reliant on third-party cloud infrastructure, may also need to scenario-plan for carbon border adjustments or e-waste levies.
Hardware, hosting and hidden levies
Environmental compliance is also part of the growing EU budget impact on iGaming, especially for firms relying on physical tech or hardware distribution. At first glance, policymakers appear to aim e-waste and carbon import levies at industrial sectors. But with the continued digitisation of betting, the physical footprint of iGaming is growing:
- Streaming hubs, live 바카라 studios, and data centres powering real-time betting feeds all depend on high-throughput tech infrastructure.
- Land-based integrations, such as biometric ID kits or smart kiosks, increasingly blur the digital-physical line.
If you’re a tech supplier shipping terminals or network hardware into the EU, expect margins to tighten as carbon and electronic waste compliance obligations rise.
National pushback and the risk of tax layering
Several member states, notably Sweden, the Netherlands, and Germany, have already signalled opposition to new EU tax powers. Meanwhile, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán has called the budget “a betrayal of Europe’s farmers,” arguing that supporting Ukraine should not come at the cost of other sectors.
This tension sets up a classic European scenario: gridlock in Brussels, followed by a reaction in capitals. And in that scenario, gambling, especially online, often becomes a fiscal scapegoat. As EGBA recently warned, Europe’s fractured gambling laws are fuelling black market migration. Any mismatch between national and supranational tax treatment could accelerate that shift.
The short-lived Italian turnover tax of 2020 offers a clear precedent: introduced in haste, applied without nuance, and ultimately reversed under pressure, but not before causing damage across the sector.
Revenue-hungry governments may target gambling again as an easy win, especially with €750 billion in recovery loans to repay and national budgets under strain. As national resistance builds, so too does the uncertainty surrounding how the EU budget impact on iGaming will differ between jurisdictions. As the European gambling sector paid billions in taxes in 2024, policymakers may now see the industry as both visible and viable.
This is a visibility tax, and gambling is now in full view
From the Commission’s perspective, large gambling firms are now clearly visible revenue sources: cross-border, regulated, and technically complex, yet highly cash-generative.
If gaming is treated like Big Tech or Big Tobacco, that could mean more than tax. It may invite:
- Pan-EU advertising rules
- Unified digital services oversight
- New thresholds for sustainability and digital carbon impact reporting
While these may offer long-term legitimacy, they come with sharp costs in the short term. For operators, that leaves three critical actions:
- Map and segment revenue exposure: Break down revenue by entity, jurisdiction, and product. Identify whether your declared income aligns with EU definitions of “corporate turnover”. Include affiliate income, B2B services, and intra-group charges in your mapping. Timeline: Q3 2025: Build a real-time exposure dashboard for senior finance and compliance teams.
- Mobilise early through trade associations: Coordinate with bodies like EGBA, EBA, and national gambling councils to ensure gambling-specific definitions are challenged or clarified in the draft tax language. Timeline: Q4 2025: Submit industry feedback before final parliamentary votes.
- Audit physical infrastructure and digital dependencies: Carbon border taxes and e-waste levies could affect everything from kiosk shipments to third-party server contracts. Catalogue current vendors and hosting agreements. Check if your hardware lifecycle plan will fall foul of 2028 thresholds. Timeline: Q1 2026: Initiate tech and environmental compliance audit across all product and data teams.
Some firms are also reviewing corporate structures to consolidate revenue below the €100 million mark per entity or explore alternative jurisdictions with more favourable interpretations of EU directives. While full restructuring may not be necessary, having a contingency map in place by mid-2026 could make all the difference if clarity arrives late.
In effect, this is a visibility tax. Von der Leyen may not have targeted gambling directly, but she doesn’t have to. The bigger you are, the brighter the spotlight, and Brussels is watching. This budget doesn’t need to name gambling. It only needs to see it.
For Europe’s iGaming sector, the message is clear: if you want to play on the main stage, be prepared to pay at the door.
Key takeaways: von der Leyen, EU budget impact on iGaming
- €2 trillion budget impact: The von der Leyen EU proposal includes a new corporate tax on companies earning over €100 million in annual revenue.
- iGaming in the firing line: Although gambling isn’t explicitly named, many iGaming operators, suppliers, and affiliate networks are likely to fall within the scope.
- Turnover confusion: The CORE tax mechanism targets net revenue, not betting handle or gross gaming revenue; however, this still requires legal clarification.
- January 2028 start date: The new tax could take effect from 2028, providing a three-year window for exposure mapping, restructuring, or lobbying.
- Hidden B2B exposure: Carbon levies and e-waste duties could affect hardware-dependent suppliers, streaming tech, and cross-border hosting infrastructure.
- Action for compliance teams: Start mapping revenue visibility across entities, reviewing tax definitions, and tracking EU policy shifts through industry groups.
