Ask the Republic: The UK’s tax gamble — who pays the price?

The UK gambling market has long been considered the gold standard of regulated iGaming, a blueprint other jurisdictions looked to when designing their own frameworks. That reputation, built over decades, is now under serious pressure.

The government’s decision to raise remote gaming duty from 21% to 40% has sent shockwaves through an industry already navigating tight margins, aggressive competition, and an ever-expanding compliance burden. For many operators, this isn’t a tax adjustment. It’s an existential question about whether the UK remains a viable place to do business at all.

The consequences extend well beyond the boardroom.

• How will operators restructure, cut costs, and reposition themselves without eroding the player experience they’ve spent years building?
• Is the government’s approach to taxation and regulation genuinely effective, or does it risk undermining the very market it’s trying to govern?
• And as legal operations become less competitive, who stands to benefit, and at what cost to players?

These questions are no longer hypothetical. Licence reviews, brand withdrawals, and corporate restructuring are already underway, and the industry’s response in the coming months will define what UK iGaming looks like for years to come. 

To assess the scale of the challenge and where the opportunities lie, we’ve brought together three senior voices from across the iGaming industry.

• Graham Greensmith, CCO at Gaming Corps
• Martyn Hannah, Managing Director at Comparasino
• Giorgi Tsutskiridze, CCO at SPRIBE

Let’s dive into this!

iGaming Republic: With operators already setting in motion mitigation plans such as Evoke formally reviewing its profitability and exploring a potential sale, how can companies survive and adapt to the upcoming UK tax changes?

Graham Greensmith: The ultimate challenge is for operators to remain competitive, in an already highly competitive and low margin landscape whilst striving to achieve their mission & goals. UK operators’ missions may now solely be to survive! Some will refuse to adapt, which is a likely impact of the harsh tax hike proposed by the UK government – widespread surrendering of licences that will actually reduce the tax revenues they forecast and likely increase gambling in unregulated markets.

Publicly-owned operators, largely the Tier 1 household brand names trade at the behest of their shareholders and may have no choice but to restructure loans or to sell fixed assets to address liquidity concerns. The latter may result in job losses on the high street – let us all hope not.

These companies and smaller, perhaps privately-owned operators may have no choice but to reduce the value proposition for players, such as their game RTPs or bonus money costs. Ultimately we live in a capitalist environment where businesses trade to make a profit. Such a large tax increase will have a significant ripple effect as businesses cannot just consume the additional cost without impacting the consumer.

“UK operators’ missions may now solely be to survive!”

Graham Greensmith, CCO at Gaming Corps

Martyn Hannah: Cost mitigation will be a priority, with operators likely to cut bonus spend, reduce RTPs, limit loyalty rewards and renegotiate supplier agreements alongside streamlining operational costs. But it’s just as important to identify areas of growth and then pursue them aggressively. 

Ultimately, operators need to acquire more players alongside reducing costs, and for those who can keep their proposition competitive, there’s a big opportunity to not only solidify their position but to strengthen it. This is the approach we are taking at Comparasino – both in terms of our own position in the online casino comparison market and supporting our partners to ensure they not only survive the tax increase but thrive in the new post-tax environment. 

Giorgi Tsutskiridze: The immediate reality is that survival will depend on strategic prioritisation. Operators will need to reassess market exposure, product mix, and operational efficiency very quickly. The UK will remain a large and important market, but for many companies it will no longer justify the same level of investment as before.

Adaptation will likely take several forms: reducing marketing spend, narrowing product portfolios, renegotiating supplier agreements, and shifting focus toward higher-margin or faster-growing regulated markets outside the UK. For suppliers and platforms, flexibility will be critical – helping operators optimise performance, engagement, and cost-efficiency rather than simply driving volume. 

Ultimately, only businesses with strong fundamentals, diversified market exposure, and scalable technology will be able to absorb this level of fiscal pressure.

“The UK will remain a large and important market, but for many companies it will no longer justify the same level of investment as before.”

Giorgi Tsutskiridze, CCO at SPRIBE

iGR: Is the UK government effective in regulating the sector, and how do operators perceive the balance between taxation, player protection, and business sustainability?

Martyn Hannah: I would argue that prior to the remote gaming duty tax increase, the UK stood as a blueprint for a sensibly regulated online casino and sports betting market. It provided the balance needed between protecting vulnerable players and providing a sustainable environment for operators, suppliers and the many other stakeholders that support that market – and that includes online casino comparison sites like Comparasino. 

”The UK stood as a blueprint for a sensibly regulated online casino and sports betting market.”

Martyn Hannah, Managing Director at Comparasino

But the tax hike has disrupted that balance and put the industry into a bit of a tail spin. Some operators will be able to mitigate the increase to the extent required for their business to remain viable, but others won’t – we’ve already seen some of our partners withdraw their brands from the market. This isn’t such a bad thing in a “survival of the fittest” sense, but it does mean reduced consumer choice and that’s never a good thing. 

Giorgi Tsutskiridze: The UK has long been regarded as one of the most structured and robust regulatory environments globally. However, regulation is only effective when it strikes a sustainable balance. From an operator and supplier perspective, there is growing concern that taxation and compliance costs are now outpacing the commercial viability of the market. Player protection is essential and non-negotiable, but if regulation makes legal operations uncompetitive, it risks undermining its own objectives.

A healthy market requires operators who can invest in responsible gaming tools, compliance, innovation, and employment. When margins are eroded too aggressively, those investments become harder to justify – and that’s where the balance starts to break down.

”When margins are eroded too aggressively, those investments become harder to justify – and that’s where the balance starts to break down.”

Giorgi Tsutskiridze, CCO at SPRIBE

Graham Greensmith: The government has unfortunately dismissed the grave and very real concerns raised by the Betting & Gaming Council (BGC), the body set up to work collaboratively with the government to ensure a fair and balanced regulatory environment for all stakeholders – including operators. It is commonly accepted that any wholesale changes to any finely poised situation can be risky, or even reckless.

Raising taxation from 21% to 40% is a monumental increase and, in my view ‘effectiveness’ considers a balanced approach – this tax grab is ineffective in principle therefore, as it is not balanced to deliver all objectives. The effectiveness of the government in regulating the sector under the new taxation policy should be assessed later in 2026, after its implementation and seeing the decisions taken by operators in reaction to the tax grab. Confidence however, is low.

iGR: Is the new remote gaming and general betting duty rate likely to achieve the UK government’s objectives, or could it end the UK industry as we know it?

Graham Greensmith: I don’t believe it will be the end. The UK is the world’s oldest and most mature regulated gambling market. Gambling is engrained within the fabric of the UK, it won’t just disappear! Yet, as with other societal vices, smokers migrate to vaping – it is still smoking. Gamblers will continue to gamble – the question is, where?

We can only hope the impact does not see thousands of jobs lost from the UK high street already decimated over recent years, hitting the largest portion of our society. Regardless of where you stand across the political spectrum, or the values you hold, business is about pleasing all stakeholders – consumers, operators and government. Balance represents fairness and the new RGD rate cannot be seen as balanced, perhaps driven by a governmental urge to raise revenue during times of hardship, themselves capitalising on a worldwide negative outlook upon the entire concept of gaming.

”We can only hope the impact does not see thousands of jobs lost from the UK high street already decimated over recent years, hitting the largest portion of our society.”

Graham Greensmith, CCO at Gaming Corps

The only likely profiteers from this are the illegal operators, not contributing to tax and not protecting the players, but benefiting them with a far better value proposition. I don’t believe this inevitable outcome is a government objective.

Giorgi Tsutskiridze: In the short term, the tax increase may achieve its fiscal objectives. In the medium to long term, it risks shrinking the regulated ecosystem. Higher taxation does not exist in isolation – it changes operator behaviour, reduces competitiveness, and limits innovation. The UK industry is unlikely to disappear, but it will look very different. We may see fewer operators, reduced product variety, and lower investment in technology and marketing.

There is also a risk that the UK loses its position as a global reference point for iGaming regulation, as companies increasingly view it as a high-risk, low-return market compared to other regulated jurisdictions.

”Higher taxation does not exist in isolation – it changes operator behaviour, reduces competitiveness, and limits innovation.”

Giorgi Tsutskiridze, CCO at SPRIBE

Martyn Hannah: Absolutely not. The Office For Budget Responsibility has already said the rise will not achieve the revenues the government expects, and that’s before you factor in the ripple effect that will be felt across all businesses that work in the sector – I’m talking about game studios, payment providers, comparison sites, etc. 

Many of these are UK based companies who will likely see a reduction in their revenues and profits, and thus the taxes they pay to HMRC. As for whether it will be the end of the industry as we know it – I don’t think so. But it is a milestone moment and one that will force organisations to adapt – of course, some will adapt and then capitalise on the opportunities that such significant change brings. 

”Many of these are UK based companies who will likely see a reduction in their revenues and profits, and thus the taxes they pay to HMRC.”

Martyn Hannah, Managing Director at Comparasino

iGR: How will the new tax rates affect the average player, and is there a risk the offshore market will grow?

Giorgi Tsutskiridze: The impact on players is unavoidable. Higher costs for operators typically translate into less generous bonuses, tighter limits, fewer promotions, and a more constrained user experience.

When legal products become less attractive or more restrictive, some players will inevitably look elsewhere. This is where the risk of offshore market growth becomes very real. Unlicensed operators do not offer the same levels of consumer protection, responsible gaming measures, or transparency – which ultimately runs counter to the government’s stated goals.

History shows that over-taxation can unintentionally push demand toward unregulated alternatives, particularly in a digital, borderless environment.

Graham Greensmith: The widespread concerns about offshore trading dragging players away from a fair & open regulated sector – are entirely real. The new tax rates will inevitably see businesses make decisions that reduce the value proposition for the player, and they will feel it, and they will seek enhanced value elsewhere. That’s economics.

The licensing objectives of the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC), tasked with regulating the sector are focused around protecting the player. I don’t see how they can effectively do this when the government has created an unfair trading landscape.

Martyn Hannah: I’ll take the second part of the question first. I believe that there’s a large cohort of players in the UK that would never knowingly play at an unlicensed site, even if that site offers bigger bonuses and better RTPs. For these players, knowing the brand is licensed and reputable comes before anything else and so long as operators can engage these players – and reaffirm why it’s important to online play at licensed brands – there won’t be a surge of players heading to black market sites.

In fact, when you look at the black market, it’s mostly made up of the big crypto brands, and these attract an entirely different player demographic, not the more casual players most of our online casino partners are looking to engage. As for the player experience, I don’t expect it to be too different. Welcome offers will likely get watered down a little – but they’re already pretty basic – and RTPs might be dropped a bit. But that aside, I think things will pretty much stay the same.

”I believe that there’s a large cohort of players in the UK that would never knowingly play at an unlicensed site, even if that site offers bigger bonuses and better RTPs.”

Martyn Hannah, Managing Director at Comparasino

iGR: Are business-friendly jurisdictions like Malta or Estonia the first stop for UK operators looking to exit or relocate?

Graham Greensmith: Absolutely, it is the simple rule of economics – choice. Businesses will inevitably choose to relocate if it suits them without disrupting the players, to the detriment of the exchequer and the UK. As with players seeking value, businesses do too. Countries like Malta and Estonia are doing a good job in remaining relevant and competitive, to the detriment of the UK.

”Countries like Malta and Estonia are doing a good job in remaining relevant and competitive, to the detriment of the UK.”

Graham Greensmith, CCO at Gaming Corps

Giorgi Tsutskiridze: Jurisdictions such as Malta and Estonia will naturally become more attractive as companies reassess their operational structures. They offer regulatory clarity, business predictability, strong talent pools, and a more balanced approach to taxation.

That said, relocation is rarely a single-step decision. Many companies will adopt hybrid strategies – maintaining a UK presence while shifting growth, technology, and operational hubs elsewhere. The key factor driving these decisions is stability. Businesses can adapt to regulation, but they struggle with unpredictability and constant upward pressure on costs.

In that sense, jurisdictions that offer long-term regulatory consistency will have a clear competitive advantage.