Written by Jon Bryan | Expected reading time 4 minutes
Last Updated: February 6, 2026
Written by Jon Bryan
Jon Bryan looks at a consultation launched last month on increasing the fees charged by the Gambling Commission.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO GAMBLING COMMISSION FEES
Last month, a consultation was launched about a possible increase to the annual fees for operating licences which are paid by the regulated gambling industry to the Gambling Commission (GC). There are three choices in the consultation:
a) 30%
b) 20%
c) 20%+10%
The eagle-eyed amongst you might spot that there are only really two choices as a) and c) are effectively the same. For the industry, that would be correct, but the way that they are different is because in the case of c), the 10% would be ‘ringfenced for tackling illegal markets and protecting licensed operators’ revenue from criminal activity’.
There is one other part of this which is important. The first option of 30% is the suggestion of the GC, while the other two options were dreamt up by the government as alternative proposals. The government has specified that they have a preference – the third option of 20%+10%.
A THIRD WAY
The rationale for this third option has been laid out in the consultation paper which was released last week, and there is an invitation to respond which you can find here. The consultation will close at the end of March 2026.
It’s not difficult to predict which one of the three outcomes that will be arrived at. The Bookies will have Option 3 as the favourite, and not at generous odds. If you want to have your say on the Gambling Commission and the additional monies that it will be receiving from the industry through this process – announced to start on 1st October 2026 – it is worth responding to the consultation and saying what you think.
ANOTHER ATTACK ON THE GAMBLING INDSUTRY
Coming fast on increases in other costs facing the gambling industry, the launch of the consultation by the government was labelled as ‘reckless’ by Shadow Culture Minister Louie French. He warned that it ‘will put jobs at risk and push more gamblers to black markets’.
As is often the case these days, the proposals were leaked online before they were supposed to be. The ‘Whitehall Blunder’ was reported in the Daily Telegraph and commented on by Nigel Huddleston, Shadow Secretary of State for the DCMS. He blasted the government for their attack on the gambling industry and said it was only needed ‘because their previous announced tax increases will drive people towards this unregulated market’.
The proposed consultation didn’t seem to go down well with the Betting and Gaming Council, who said that this would ‘add a further significant cost burden on licenced operators at a time when the sector is already absorbing major tax rises from the autumn Budget’. The BGC also highlighted the government’s own figures on the additional cost, which could be as much as an additional £8.7million on the industry.
Guido Fawkes, the independent news and politics site in the UK who are ‘proudly 100% pro free speech’, took aim at the way that the Gambling Commission operates when it heard the news about the proposed increase of 30%. They were critical of the increase in staff, professional fees, agency staff costs, and the high salaries paid to those at the top. To help make efficiency savings, they suggested that the GC should start by ‘looking in the mirror’.
THEY WILL ALWAYS COME BACK FOR MORE
No doubt the Gambling Commission will say that this review was needed since the last one was in 2021, and a lot has changed since then. They will also point out the work that they are doing which necessitates such a review. But, a 30% hike, and at a time when the industry is still reeling from the tax rises announced last year, the timing is, at best, awkward.
For those of us who are gambling consumers, the impact may not be so obvious, but fees are hardly being hiked in the interests of the players. However, that’s not the view of the government and the GC in the consultation document, which is at pains to make references to the consumer benefits that are linked to this:
‘improved consumer choice’.
‘further empower consumers’.
‘the benefit of…consumers’.
‘best serve consumers’.
‘the interests of consumers’.
‘protect consumers’.
One might say that there are so many mentions of this, that they are doing their best to justify something which will be seen by many as money leaving the gambling sector to go into a QUANGO.
I cannot see this consultation as bringing about anything but another negative change which won’t help gamblers or gambling. And 30%!? That’s a big hike in fees.
Jon Bryan is a Gambling Writer and recreational Poker Player who writes regularly on his Substack, as well as for SlotsHawk, which you can find here: Jon’s articles for SlotsHawk.
Follow him on social media:
