EU iGaming tax debate: EGBA warns proposal is unrealistic and risky

The European Gaming and Betting Association has raised significant concerns over a proposed European Union wide tax on online gambling, describing the concept as “fundamentally unrealistic” and potentially counterproductive. The debate has emerged as part of broader discussions surrounding the EU’s next long term financial framework, covering the period from 2028 to 2034.

While policymakers continue to explore new revenue streams to support the bloc’s budgetary needs, industry representatives have cautioned that such a tax could unintentionally undermine regulated markets and reduce overall tax income for member states.

Background to the EU budget discussions

The proposal surfaced during deliberations by the European Parliament Budget Committee, which has been examining possible funding mechanisms for the upcoming Multiannual Financial Framework. This framework determines how the European Union allocates and raises funds over multi year periods and is a central element of the bloc’s financial planning.

Among several ideas under review is a unified tax on online gambling activities across EU member states. The concept was initially introduced earlier in 2026 by Victor Negrescu, who argued that the measure could provide a meaningful contribution to EU finances.

According to estimates associated with the proposal, such a levy could generate between €2 billion and €4 billion annually, potentially reaching a cumulative €28 billion over the duration of the budget cycle. The idea attracted backing from a group of Members of the European Parliament, signaling a degree of political interest in exploring the concept further.

However, it is important to note that at this stage, the proposal remains exploratory and does not constitute binding legislation.

EGBA raises concerns over feasibility and legality

The European Gaming and Betting Association has responded critically, emphasizing both legal and practical challenges associated with implementing a centralized EU gambling tax. The organization argues that gambling regulation within the European Union remains largely the responsibility of individual member states, rather than EU institutions.

Maarten Haijer, Secretary General of the association, clarified that the recent vote in the Budget Committee should not be interpreted as a definitive policy shift. Instead, he characterized it as an initial step aimed at assessing the feasibility of new revenue options.

From a legal standpoint, EGBA maintains that there is currently no established framework that would allow the EU to impose, harmonize or collect such a tax across all member states. Any attempt to do so could face complex regulatory hurdles and require significant changes to existing governance structures.

Beyond legal considerations, the association described the proposed system as “fundamentally unworkable,” particularly when layered on top of already diverse national taxation regimes.

Concerns about market distortion and illegal operators

One of the central arguments put forward by EGBA relates to the potential market impact of an additional tax burden. In several EU countries, licensed gambling operators already face relatively high taxation rates, in some cases exceeding 50 percent of gross gaming revenue.

According to the association, introducing a further EU level tax could place regulated operators at a competitive disadvantage. This, in turn, might encourage consumers to shift toward unlicensed or offshore platforms that do not comply with EU regulations or taxation requirements.

EGBA has warned that “the sole winners are the illegal operators,” highlighting the risk that such platforms could offer more attractive odds, bonuses and pricing due to their lower cost structures.

This concern reflects a broader policy challenge within the European gambling sector, where authorities aim to strike a balance between taxation, consumer protection and market competitiveness. Excessive fiscal pressure on licensed operators can, according to industry stakeholders, undermine channelization efforts that seek to direct users toward regulated environments.

Potential implications for consumer protection

In addition to economic considerations, the debate also carries implications for consumer safety. Regulated gambling operators within the EU are typically subject to strict requirements related to responsible gaming, anti money laundering measures and player protection.

Unlicensed operators, by contrast, may not adhere to these standards. EGBA has cautioned that if consumers migrate toward such platforms due to price differences or reduced availability of regulated services, overall player protection could be weakened.

This perspective aligns with ongoing discussions across Europe about how best to limit the influence of illegal gambling markets. Many national regulators have introduced measures such as advertising restrictions, payment blocking and licensing reforms to address these risks.

A supranational tax that inadvertently strengthens unregulated operators could, according to critics, run counter to these efforts.

Committee vote and current status of the proposal

The Budget Committee’s initial report on the long term financial framework received majority support, with 26 members voting in favor. Nine members opposed the report while five were absent during the vote.

It is essential to interpret this outcome within its procedural context. The vote does not establish a binding policy but rather signals political willingness to explore different funding options. The inclusion of an online gambling tax among these options reflects its perceived revenue potential, rather than a finalized commitment.

The next step in the process involves a broader vote within the European Parliament, expected to take place in the near term. Following this, formal negotiations between EU institutions and member states will begin.

Role of the EU Council and decision timeline

Any decision regarding new EU revenue sources ultimately requires agreement among all 27 member states, represented within the Council of the European Union. This unanimity requirement introduces an additional layer of complexity, as national governments may have differing views on taxation, sovereignty and market regulation.

Given these procedural steps, a final decision on the proposed iGaming tax is not expected immediately. Current indications suggest that discussions could extend into late 2026, as part of the broader negotiations surrounding the Multiannual Financial Framework.

During this period, stakeholders including industry associations, national regulators and policymakers are likely to continue presenting their perspectives on the potential benefits and risks of the proposal.

Broader context of EU gambling regulation

The debate over a unified gambling tax highlights the fragmented nature of gambling regulation within the European Union. While the EU provides overarching principles related to competition and consumer protection, individual member states retain primary authority over gambling laws and taxation.

This decentralized approach has resulted in a diverse landscape, with varying licensing models, tax rates and regulatory frameworks across countries. Efforts to introduce EU wide measures in this sector often encounter legal and political challenges due to these differences.

As a result, proposals such as the one under discussion must navigate not only economic considerations but also questions of jurisdiction and regulatory competence.

Conclusion

The proposal to introduce an EU wide online gambling tax has sparked a complex and evolving debate that sits at the intersection of fiscal policy, market regulation and consumer protection. While the idea offers a potentially significant new revenue stream for the European Union, it also raises substantial legal and practical questions.

The European Gaming and Betting Association’s warning that the measure could be “fundamentally unrealistic” underscores the challenges involved in harmonizing taxation across a highly fragmented sector. Concerns about market distortion, reduced tax efficiency and the potential growth of illegal operators add further weight to the discussion.

At this stage, the proposal remains under consideration rather than formal adoption. The coming months and years will be critical in determining whether EU institutions and member states can find a balanced approach that addresses both financial objectives and regulatory realities.

As negotiations progress, the outcome will likely shape not only the future of EU budget funding but also the broader trajectory of online gambling regulation across the region.

FAQs

What is the EU iGaming tax proposal about?
The proposal suggests introducing a unified tax on online gambling across EU member states to generate revenue for the EU budget.

Who proposed the idea of an EU gambling tax?
Romanian MEP Victor Negrescu initially suggested the concept as part of discussions on future EU funding.

How much revenue could the tax generate?
Estimates indicate it could raise between €2 billion and €4 billion annually.

Why does EGBA oppose the proposal?
EGBA argues the tax is legally complex and could harm regulated operators while benefiting illegal platforms.

Is the tax already approved?
No, it is still under discussion and has not been adopted as law.

What is the Multiannual Financial Framework?
It is the EU’s long term budget plan that outlines spending and revenue priorities over several years.

Could the tax affect consumers?
Yes, it could lead to fewer regulated options and potentially push users toward unlicensed platforms.

Who will decide on the final implementation?
All 27 EU member states must agree through the Council of the European Union.

When will a final decision be made?
A decision is expected after extended negotiations, likely by late 2026.

Does the EU currently regulate gambling?
Gambling regulation is mainly handled at the national level by individual member states.