Opposition to EU Gambling Tax: Horse Racing Stakeholders Raise Alarm

The discussion regarding an EU-wide tax on online gambling is intensifying. Representatives of the European horse racing industry have joined forces to protect their sector from the planned levies from Brussels. At the heart of the matter is the financing of the EU budget for the years 2028 and 2034. The European and Mediterranean Horseracing Federation (EMHF) and the European Trotting Union (UET) addressed a formal letter to Thomas Byrne, Minister of State for European Affairs, and Simon Harris, the Irish Finance Minister. As Ireland currently holds the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, the government there plays a key role in the negotiations.

The federations argue that betting on horse racing should be explicitly excluded from any plans for a new EU tax. They warn that an additional financial burden could undermine the sustainability of the licensed sector. The risk of consumers migrating to illegal markets due to higher prices or poorer odds is seen as particularly critical. This would not only weaken consumer protection but ultimately reduce the tax revenues of individual member states, as the black market pays no levies. In many countries, horse racing is directly dependent on revenue from legal betting to fund breeding programs, trainers, and racecourses.

Numbers and facts

The debate was initiated back in February 2026 by Victor Negrescu, Vice President of the European Parliament. He sees a harmonized tax as an opportunity to generate between 2 and 4 billion euros in additional funds annually. Newer estimates from think tanks even suggest up to 5 billion euros per year. This stands in contrast to the interests of countries like Malta, where the gambling industry accounts for approximately 12 percent of the gross domestic product. The adoption of such a tax requires the unanimity of all 27 EU member states. In the UK, the general betting duty for horse racing remained at 15 percent following successful lobbying by the British Horseracing Authority (BHA), serving as a model for current demands.

Background

The conflict is fueled by prominent voices on both sides. While former England national goalkeeper Peter Shilton supports the tax to limit advertising budgets and combat gambling addiction, industry experts warn of the consequences. Marteen Haijer, former Secretary General of the European Betting and Gaming Association (EGBA), clearly emphasized the risks of double taxation:

"Imposing an EU tax on top of existing national taxes would only make this situation worse: expanding the black market, harming European consumer protection and ultimately leading to lower tax revenues for Member States." - Marteen Haijer, former Secretary General of the EGBA

Dr. Peter Truzla, President of the UET, echoed this sentiment, stating that legal betting is the foundation for rural jobs and the entire infrastructure of the sport. An additional tax burden would drive business to illegal operators, massively endangering consumer protection.

Why it matters for German players

For German players, an EU-wide tax could have serious consequences. In Germany, the market is already strictly regulated by the Interstate Treaty on Gambling 2021 (GlüStV 2021). High taxes on stakes are already in place, often leading to lower payout ratios. Should Brussels implement an additional levy, legal providers would have to adjust their margins further. This could further worsen the already limited offering from GGL-licensed operators. German users are already subject to strict rules such as the 1,000 euro monthly deposit limit and the 1 euro per spin limit for online slots. A further increase in the cost of legal gaming could jeopardize the channeling rate, as players might increasingly attempt to bypass LUGAS monitoring and high costs at unlicensed offshore casinos.

What it means for GGL-licensed casinos

Casinos with a license from the Gemeinsame Glücksspielbehörde der Länder (GGL) would face an enormous economic challenge. Since they already comply with strict German requirements and pay corresponding taxes, an EU tax would massively limit their competitiveness against the black market. The GGL whitelist includes providers committed to maintaining the highest standards. An additional tax burden from Brussels could lead to reputable providers cutting their marketing budgets or withdrawing entirely from certain market segments. This would give black market providers, who would not pay EU taxes anyway, a further competitive advantage and undermine the laboriously established regulation in Germany.