Gibraltar’s Trade and Industry Minister, Nigel Feetham, met Reform UK leader Nigel Farage on 25 October as part of a last-minute lobbying push against further UK gambling tax rises ahead of the Chancellor’s Budget on 28 October. The Gibraltar gambling tax campaign reflects how exposed the territory’s economy is to decisions made in Westminster, given how many UK-facing operators are licensed there.
What happened
Nigel Farage was welcomed by high ranking officials in Gibraltar to discuss mitigation strategies against a potential gambling tax increase in the UK
.
The meeting on 25 October, reported by Gibraltar’s public broadcaster GBC, saw Feetham and other Reform politicians discuss the potential consequences of further UK gambling tax increases as part of a wider effort to engage politicians across the political spectrum
.
Feetham has continued his campaign against further increases to UK gambling taxes, having unsuccessfully campaigned last year to halt a rise in remote gaming duty by citing the impact on tax receipts for the UK overseas territory
. On the latest meeting, Feetham said his focus was to ensure Gibraltar’s interests were represented and that the message was
heard loud and clear by all political parties
with the Budget approaching.
Speculation ahead of the Budget had centred on Machine Games Duty.
Speculation was previously rife that Machine Games Duty would be increased to 40%, though concerns have since been tempered slightly as many now believe only a 5% increase to 25% awaits
.
A hike would dent betting shops, Adult Gaming Centres and bingo halls, with industry estimates warning of thousands of jobs cut and hundreds of venues closing
.
Why the Gibraltar gambling tax fight matters
Gibraltar is not a bystander in UK gambling policy. Several of the largest operators serving UK customers are licensed and headquartered there, meaning any change to UK duty rates lands directly on Gibraltar-based balance sheets and payrolls.
A UK tax increase would inevitably affect operators’ expenses, leading to cost cuts that could see closures and job losses replicated in Gibraltar itself
.
For affiliates and performance marketers, the stakes are indirect but real. Operators facing higher duty typically respond by tightening marketing and bonus budgets to protect margins, which can compress commission structures and slow the flow of new partnership deals. A further squeeze on Gibraltar-based brands would add to pressure already building across the UK market since the remote gaming duty increase took effect.
The bigger picture
The current lobbying follows a tax rise already in force.
Remote Gaming Duty rose from 21% to 40% on remote gaming profits for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 April 2026, with a new 25% rate for remote betting due from 1 April 2027
. Gibraltar’s exposure to that shift is substantial:
the territory’s online gaming sector contributes roughly 30% of its GDP, directly employs more than 3,400 people, and generates around one-third of total UK gambling tax receipts
, according to Feetham.
The Treasury has previously shown little appetite to reverse course.
Exchequer Secretary Dan Tomlinson welcomed Gibraltar’s engagement but made clear the government would not budge from its decision
when Feetham raised similar concerns earlier this year. With the Budget now imminent, Gibraltar’s government appears to be hedging its bets by widening its political contacts beyond the governing party, a tactic that mirrors how Betsson and other operators have already had to adjust guidance around the tax hit, as covered in Betsson’s record Q3 results despite the tax hit.
Sources
- SBC News – Nigel Farage lands in Gibraltar to lay out UK gambling concerns
- iGaming Expert – Gibraltar seeks out Nigel Farage and Reform ahead of UK tax decision
- The Lines – Where Do the UK’s Political Parties Stand on Gambling?
- iGaming Business – Aftershock: How the UK tax hike is recasting Gibraltar’s iGaming economy
- Kennedys Law – Raising the stakes on gambling duty
- The Chronicle – UK committed to gaming tax increase but will monitor impact
Leave a Reply