No, the high street bookmaker is not already dead. That is the assumption behind most of the shrugging that greeted the Back Our Betting Shops campaign, launched by the Betting and Gaming Council on 28 September 2026, and it is the first thing worth correcting. Britain still has thousands of licensed betting shops employing tens of thousands of people, and the fight the BGC has picked, a proposed rise in Machine Games Duty to 40 per cent, is a fight over whether a good chunk of that estate survives the next tax year.
Whether you back the industry’s case or think it is special pleading, the campaign is the clearest window we have had in years into how physical betting shops actually make money, and how differently they are taxed and regulated from the apps most of us use. Let me walk through the misconceptions one at a time.
Myth: the Back Our Betting Shops campaign is nostalgia for a dying format
Reality: it is a lobbying campaign with a specific, near-term target. The BGC is not asking for sympathy for an obsolete business model. It is opposing a proposed increase in Machine Games Duty, the tax charged on the net takings of gaming machines, which in betting shops means the B3-style slot and roulette terminals that sit along the wall.
The campaign’s chosen framing is people rather than profit margins: shop staff, regular customers, and the communities the BGC says lose something when a unit on the parade goes dark. That is a deliberate choice. Arguing “our shareholders would prefer a lower tax rate” wins nobody over. Arguing that a tax change closes the shop where three people work, and that the Treasury ends up collecting less anyway, is a harder case to dismiss.
Myth: a machine tax only bites into operator profits
Reality: machine income is a large enough share of a shop’s revenue that the tax line and the closure decision are directly connected. A betting shop is a high fixed cost, thin margin retail unit. Rent, business rates, two or three staff on shift for safer gambling and age checks, EPOS and counter systems, racing media rights to show the pictures on the screens, and the Horserace Betting Levy on British racing profits all land before a penny of profit does. Machines carry a disproportionate share of the gross win that covers those costs.
So when the duty on that income moves, the arithmetic for marginal shops, the quiet ones in smaller towns, flips fast. The BGC points to analysis by EY to put numbers on it. Here is what that analysis, as cited by the council, says is at risk if Machine Games Duty goes to 40 per cent:
| What is at risk | EY estimate cited by the BGC |
|---|---|
| Jobs across the sector | Up to 16,000 |
| Betting shops | Nearly 1,500 |
| Casinos | Up to 34 |
| Net Treasury revenue | A reduction of £124m |
Casinos appear on that list because Machine Games Duty is not a betting shop tax, it is a machine tax, and land based casinos run machines too. That is why the campaign’s coalition is broader than the name suggests.
Myth: doubling the duty doubles the tax take
Reality: the industry’s own modelling says the opposite, and you should read it with clear eyes. The £124m figure is the headline the BGC wants you to remember, because it reframes the debate from “should gambling pay more” to “would this actually raise anything”. The logic is straightforward enough: if the tax closes shops, the closed shops pay no duty, no business rates, no employer national insurance, and their staff come off payroll.
The honest caveat: this is analysis commissioned in the interests of the sector that pays it, using assumptions about how many venues sit close enough to the margin to fail. The Treasury will have its own modelling with its own assumptions, and it will not have been written to protect betting shops. Neither set of numbers is neutral. What is genuinely true is that machine duty is a tax with an unusually direct route to venue closure, which makes revenue forecasting harder than it is for, say, a rate change on online gaming.
Myth: shops are closing because of tax
Reality: the long decline of the estate was driven by the internet, not the tax code, and critics of the campaign make this point fairly. Betting migrated to phones. The 2019 cut in maximum stakes on fixed odds betting terminals, from £100 to £2 a spin, removed a large revenue stream from the shop floor and accelerated closures that were already under way.
That context matters because it cuts both ways. It weakens the implication that a tax rise is the sole threat to the high street bookmaker. It also strengthens the argument that the remaining estate is already lean, having shed its weakest units over several years, so a further cost shock lands on shops that have little left to cut.
Myth: retail and online betting are the same business in different clothes
Reality: they are different cost structures, different product mixes and different tax heads, which is exactly why a machine duty rise is not a sector-wide tax in any even sense. A rough comparison of online vs retail betting as businesses:
| High street bookmakers | Online sportsbooks and casinos | |
|---|---|---|
| Main cost base | Rent, rates, staff on shift, racing pictures | Marketing, technology, payments, affiliates |
| Scaling | Linear, one unit at a time | Near instant, no floor space needed |
| Machine and slot income | Taxed as Machine Games Duty on net takings | Taxed as Remote Gaming Duty on operator gross profits |
| Sports betting income | General Betting Duty | General Betting Duty |
| Player protection | Face-to-face age checks, staff interaction, cash on the counter | Account-based checks, automated monitoring, data trails |
| Opening hours | Licensed hours, closed overnight | Always open |
Two things follow from that table. First, a shop cannot respond to a tax rise by trimming a marketing budget, because it barely has one. Second, an account-based operator has surveillance tools a counter clerk does not, while a shop has something no app has, a human being who can see that a customer has been standing at the same terminal for two hours. Reasonable people disagree about which offers better protection. Pretending one is obviously safer than the other is where most of this debate goes wrong.
Myth: if your local closes, the betting just stops
Reality: most of it moves. That is the practical implication for anyone in the iGaming trade, and it is why this story matters well beyond the UK high street. Shop closures push spend towards licensed apps, and, for a minority of customers, towards unlicensed offshore sites with no dispute resolution, no self-exclusion scheme worth the name and no obligation to hand your money back.
For operators, that changes the shape of a market. For regulators, it changes where oversight needs to sit. And for British sport, it changes who funds it. Retail betting pays the Horserace Betting Levy on profits from British racing and pays for the media rights that put racing on shop screens all afternoon, which is why racing bodies tend to line up behind campaigns like this one rather than staying neutral.
What is worth watching next
Three things. Whether the 40 per cent figure survives into an actual Budget measure or was always an opening position. Whether any rise is phased, since a staged increase gives operators time to restructure rather than close. And whether the Treasury publishes modelling that engages with the closure effect at all, because that is the single point on which the BGC’s case rests.
If you want to check the mechanics yourself rather than take anyone’s word for it, HMRC publishes the current Machine Games Duty guidance, including how net takings are calculated and which machines fall inside the charge.
Frequently asked questions
What is the Back Our Betting Shops campaign? A campaign launched by the Betting and Gaming Council on 28 September 2026 opposing a proposed rise in Machine Games Duty to 40 per cent in Britain, built around the staff, customers and communities connected to betting shops.
How many jobs and shops are said to be at risk? EY analysis cited by the BGC puts up to 16,000 jobs, nearly 1,500 betting shops and up to 34 casinos at risk, alongside a £124m reduction in Treasury revenue.
Does a tax rise on machines affect online betting? Not directly, since online casino play is taxed under Remote Gaming Duty rather than Machine Games Duty. Indirectly it can shift customers and spend from shops onto apps.
Whichever way this lands, the odds on a gaming machine do not change with the tax rate: every one carries a built-in house edge, and outcomes are random and independent of what came before. Set a deposit or loss limit before you play, use the self-exclusion and cool-off tools your operator offers, and if it stops feeling like entertainment, stop.
About the Author
