Poland's Four Gambling Trade Bodies Reject a 1% EU-Wide Online Gambling Levy

A joint statement from the country's bookmaking and gaming associations says the tax floated for the EU's 2028 to 2034 budget would push players to unlicensed sites and cut, not raise, state revenue, and asks instead for uniform EU rules against illegal operators. Malta and EGBA have already objected; the levy would need every member state's consent.

• The Polish Chamber of Commerce of the Entertainment and Bookmaking Industry, the Bukmacherzy Razem association, the Play Legally association and the Association of Employers of the Entertainment and Gaming Industry have issued a joint statement "strongly" opposing an EU-wide gambling tax, SBC News reports
• The idea of a 1% levy on licensed online gambling was raised at the start of 2026 by European Parliament vice-president Victor Negrescu as a revenue source for the 2028 to 2034 Multiannual Financial Framework; his office said in June it was gaining momentum, and Budget Commissioner Piotr Serafin has said the Commission is looking at all options
• The Polish bodies argue the tax would reduce legal operators' competitiveness, make illegal sites more attractive and shrink rather than grow tax receipts, and note it was not in the Commission's original 2025 budget package
• They propose instead uniform EU market-access rules for legal operators, enforceable consumer-protection standards and better tools against the black market
• Malta and the European Gaming and Betting Association have already opposed the levy, which would require unanimous agreement of the member states to be adopted

A Fourth Voice Against a Tax That Is Still Only an Idea

Poland's gambling industry has joined Malta and the European Gaming and Betting Association in opposing a European Union-wide levy on online gambling, in a joint statement from its four main trade bodies reported by SBC News on Monday. The Board of the Polish Chamber of Commerce of the Entertainment and Bookmaking Industry, the Bukmacherzy Razem association, the Play Legally association and the Association of Employers of the Entertainment and Gaming Industry said they "strongly" oppose a common EU gambling tax.

The proposal they are responding to has no legal text. European Parliament vice-president Victor Negrescu raised the idea of a 1% blanket tax on the licensed online gambling sector at the start of the year, as one of several new revenue streams for the Union's 2028 to 2034 Multiannual Financial Framework. His office told SBC News in June that the idea had not been rejected and was gaining support in Brussels, and Piotr Serafin, the European Commissioner for Budget, Anti-Fraud and Public Administration, has said the Commission is examining all budgeting options, including a collective gambling levy. The Polish statement points out that the tax was absent from the Commission's original budget package presented in 2025, and that the Parliament has continued to promote it.

The objection is the channelisation argument. An additional tax "may lead to a decrease in the competitiveness of legal operators, an increase in the attractiveness of illegal websites for consumers, and thus the outflow of some players to entities operating outside the law and a further increase in the shadow economy", the bodies said, which "will result in a reduction (rather than an increase) of the state's tax revenues and an increase in risks for players". They do not dispute the Union's or member states' right to set fiscal policy; what they oppose is a new burden on legal entities with no accompanying measures against illegal ones. Their counter-proposal is uniform EU market-access rules for legal operators, enforceable consumer-protection standards across the bloc and more effective tools against the black market. "Only this approach will make it possible to achieve the goal of simultaneously ensuring public revenues, protecting citizens, developing a legal market and effectively limiting the activities of illegal operators."

The mechanics favour the objectors. Neither the Commission nor the Parliament can impose a harmonised gambling tax; it would go to the member states and require unanimity, and Malta, whose economy depends on its licensing regime, has already said no in Brussels. The Netherlands is the example the industry cites for the revenue argument: its treasury collected less from gambling after raising the rate, and the Dutch regulator's chairman said this month that half of every euro now goes to illegal operators.

Poland Is an Unusual Objector Because Its Own Market Is Half Closed

Poland licenses private bookmakers but reserves online casino to the state monopoly Totalizator Sportowy, and its bookmakers pay a 12% turnover tax that the industry has long argued drives players offshore. The four bodies signing this statement represent the licensed betting sector, which knows from its own market what a tax on the legal channel does to the illegal one. Their objection is therefore credible on the channelisation point and self-interested on the rest: a 1% EU levy on top of a 12% turnover tax would be marginal for the largest operators and material for the smaller ones, and a Union-wide rule on market access, the alternative they propose, would be a way of prising open the Polish casino monopoly that domestic politics has kept shut.

The Levy Is Not Going to Pass, and That Is Not the Point of Fighting It

Unanimity among 27 states on a new gambling tax with Malta opposed is not a realistic prospect, and everyone signing statements against it knows that. The value of the campaign is elsewhere: it puts the industry's channelisation evidence on the record in Brussels at the moment the Commission is deciding what the next budget cycle's own resources look like, and it builds the case for the harmonisation the industry does want, on market access and enforcement, as the price of any fiscal ask. Negrescu's proposal has done the sector a service by giving it something concrete to oppose.

The Real Risk Is a Levy by Another Name

If a direct gambling tax fails on unanimity, the same revenue can be sought through instruments that do not need it: a digital services levy, an extension of VAT treatment, or conditions attached to the anti-money-laundering framework that raise compliance costs across the bloc. The trade bodies' statement addresses the tax it can see. The Commission's search for own resources is broader than one vice-president's idea, and a sector that every finance ministry in the bloc already taxes will remain on the list of places to look.

Four Polish associations have said no to a tax that cannot pass without Poland's consent. The statement is aimed less at the levy than at what replaces it.