Dutch operators have urged lawmakers to revisit the Netherlands’ rising gambling tax, claiming the policy has reduced receipts by an estimated €43.5m in 2025 and is accelerating movement to unlicensed sites ahead of a parliamentary committee debate on 11 March.
• Dutch trade body VNLOK says higher gambling taxes are reducing receipts, with an estimated €43.5m less paid on online gambling in 2025 than the prior year.
• The Netherlands is raising gambling tax in stages, moving from 30.5 per cent to 34.2 per cent in 2025 and scheduled to reach 37.8 per cent in 2026.
• VNLOK argues the policy is accelerating movement to unlicensed operators and weakening player protection outcomes.
• The regulator has previously indicated it expects a year on year fall in gambling tax receipts of around €40m linked to the changes.
• Industry groups are urging Parliament to order an evaluation of the tax policy by the second quarter of 2026 ahead of a committee debate on 11 March.
Dutch licensed online gambling operators are urging lawmakers to reconsider the Netherlands’ rising gambling tax, warning that the staged increases are producing lower receipts and sending more play towards unlicensed websites.
The intervention, published by trade body VNLOK, comes ahead of a parliamentary committee debate on gambling taxation scheduled for 11 March. VNLOK, which represents Kansspelautoriteit licensed online operators, said a sector analysis suggests that €43.5m less tax was paid on online gambling in 2025 compared with the previous year.
The Netherlands is increasing gambling tax in steps under its 2025 tax plan. The rate moved from 30.5 per cent to 34.2 per cent in 2025 and is due to rise again to 37.8 per cent in 2026. The policy was intended to generate structural additional revenue from the regulated sector, but VNLOK argues the opposite is happening as the licensed market becomes less competitive relative to offshore offers.
VNLOK chair Björn Fuchs described the measure as financially unwise, saying the sector is seeing lower tax revenues, more illegal offerings, and reduced funding flows to sports and charities. The trade body also linked the trend to player protection outcomes, arguing that displacement into unlicensed channels undermines the policy goal of keeping consumers inside a supervised environment.
The argument is not confined to industry claims. In a prior impact assessment, the Kansspelautoriteit warned that gambling tax revenue in 2025 could be around €40m lower than in 2024, despite the higher rate, reflecting concerns about market contraction and channel shift.
VNLOK is also highlighting downstream impacts on sport. The association cited sector estimates that each one percentage point increase in gambling tax reduces contributions to Dutch sport by around €2.5m, with the Dutch Olympic committee estimating the current rise could cost the sports sector between €12.5m and €15m. VNLOK is calling, alongside other sector stakeholders, for the government to produce an evaluation of the tax changes by the second quarter of 2026 so the findings can inform future tax decisions.
The Dutch debate is becoming a textbook example of the channelisation trade off. Higher tax can lift public revenue on paper, but only if the regulated offer remains attractive enough to keep consumers inside the licensed market. When the combined effect of tax, product restrictions, and reduced marketing visibility makes legal play less competitive, the policy can erode its own base.
What makes VNLOK’s intervention more politically relevant is the alignment with the regulator’s earlier warning about receipts. A forecast drop in tax take, paired with rising concern about unlicensed share, creates an uncomfortable narrative for policymakers: the state may be collecting less while also weakening player protection safeguards, because unlicensed operators do not follow the same controls.
An evidence led evaluation is therefore the sensible next step, but it needs to look beyond headline revenue. The key metrics should include unlicensed participation, the speed of migration following price or offer changes, and the impact on funding streams tied to regulated gambling. If the committee debate turns into a simple argument over rates, it will miss the more important question: whether the current trajectory is structurally pushing consumers away from the regulated perimeter.
