Polish Gambling Bodies Oppose Proposed 1% EU-Wide Online Tax
Poland.- 22 September 2026 | www.zonadeazar.com Four organisations representing Poland’s gambling sector have jointly opposed a potential 1% EU-wide levy on regulated online gambling.
The proposal has entered the debate over additional revenue sources for the European Union’s 2028-2034 Multiannual Financial Framework.
1% Proposal
The idea was initially advanced by Victor Negrescu, Vice-President of the European Parliament.
His proposal would introduce a general 1% levy on Europe’s licensed online gambling sector as an additional source of EU budget revenue.
No such tax has yet been adopted and it is not currently an enforceable fiscal obligation.
Discussion in Brussels
The concept remains part of wider discussions around EU budget funding.
European Commissioner for Budget, Anti-Fraud and Public Administration Piotr Serafin has previously confirmed that the Commission is examining a range of possible revenue options.
A gambling-related contribution is among the possibilities being discussed.
Poland Joins Opposition
Polish stakeholders are joining other European parties that have already raised objections.
Malta and the European Gaming and Betting Association, EGBA, have both previously spoken against an EU-wide gambling levy.
Four Signatories
The joint Polish position was supported by:
- The Polish Chamber of Commerce of the Entertainment and Bookmaking Industry.
- Bukmacherzy Razem.
- Play Legally.
- The Association of Employers of the Entertainment and Gaming Industry.
The organisations argue that adding a new fiscal burden in isolation could weaken licensed operators’ competitiveness.
“Harmonise Everything, Not Only Tax”
Their central argument is that taxation should not be harmonised on its own.
They believe any EU-wide levy should be accompanied by broader discussion covering:
- Market access.
- Consumer protection.
- Supervision.
- Enforcement.
- Action against illegal operators.
Different National Regulatory Models
EU Member States currently apply very different national gambling frameworks.
Differences include:
- Licensing systems.
- Tax rates.
- Permitted products.
- Advertising rules.
- Safer gambling requirements.
- Market-entry conditions.
The Polish organisations therefore argue that a uniform tax would be applied across markets operating under materially different conditions.
Fragmented Legal Market
The signatories note that a licensed operator cannot currently use a single authorisation to provide gambling services across every EU Member State.
Businesses must comply separately with national rules in each jurisdiction.
Unlicensed operators, by contrast, may attempt to reach consumers across several markets without accepting those same obligations.
Polish Gambling Taxation
Poland already imposes a significant tax burden on licensed betting.
The general tax rate on mutual betting, excluding certain horse-racing products, is 12% of betting turnover.
This means the levy is calculated on stakes rather than Gross Gaming Revenue.
Impact on GGR
Industry organisations argue that a 12% turnover tax can absorb more than half of an operator’s GGR in some circumstances.
That assessment reflects the sector’s position and will vary according to margins, product mix and individual business structures.
Additional Cost of Regulation
Taxation is only one component of the cost of operating legally.
Licensed operators may also face expenditure related to:
- Licensing.
- Compliance.
- Technology.
- Safer gambling.
- Monitoring.
- Anti-money laundering.
- Administrative obligations.
The organisations argue that an additional EU levy would further widen the cost gap between regulated and illegal businesses.
Channelisation Concerns
The Polish bodies warn that a higher fiscal burden could reduce the competitiveness of authorised platforms.
Their argument is that weaker pricing, promotions or commercial conditions could make illegal alternatives more attractive to some consumers.
This is an industry concern rather than an official finding from EU institutions.
Tax-Revenue Risk
The signatories also argue that weaker channelisation could ultimately reduce rather than increase public revenue.
Their reasoning is that customers moving to illegal operators would no longer contribute gambling taxes within the regulated market.
Consumer Protection Dimension
The dispute also involves consumer protection.
Industry representatives argue that customers using unlicensed sites can fall outside regulatory protections involving:
- Identity verification.
- Self-exclusion.
- Safer gambling.
- Protection of player funds.
- Dispute resolution.
They therefore link fiscal policy with the effectiveness of the regulated market.
Alternative Proposal
The Polish organisations say any European initiative should include common rules strengthening the position of legal operators.
Their suggested priorities include:
- Harmonised market-access rules.
- EU-wide consumer-protection standards.
- Shared tools against illegal gambling.
- Stronger cross-border enforcement.
Wider Regulatory Harmonisation
The intervention revives a longstanding debate about whether parts of Europe’s gambling framework should become more harmonised.
The sector is still regulated primarily at Member State level.
A move towards common European rules would therefore represent a significant departure from the existing model.
Institutional Context
The proposed gambling levy remains a political proposal rather than an approved tax.
Neither the European Commission nor the European Parliament can unilaterally impose such an EU-wide tax.
A fiscal measure of this nature would require agreement from Member States through the applicable EU procedures.
Next Steps and Impact
The issue will continue to form part of negotiations around the EU’s 2028-2034 financial framework.
Polish opposition now adds to concerns already raised by other stakeholders that tax harmonisation should not proceed without addressing the substantial regulatory differences between national gambling markets.
The eventual outcome will depend on whether Member States support new sources of EU revenue and how any future gambling-related proposal is structured.
Editó: @fonta
