Revenue Targets Missed by Vast Margins
Monitor effecten verhoging kansspelbelasting - juni 2026 (PDF - 310.87 kB)
The Monitor Effects of Gambling Tax Increase lays out the gap in stark terms. When the rate rose from 30,5% to 34,2% on 1 January 2025, the increase was projected to generate €108 million in additional tax revenue that year. The actual figure came in at €2 million – less than 2% of the target.
The 2026 picture is somewhat better but still well below expectations. With the rate climbing further to 37,8%, anticipated additional revenue stood at €216 million. Actual collections reached €57 million, leaving a shortfall of roughly €159 million.
Beyond the direct tax shortfall, the monitor notes that the hike also triggered a decline in revenues from state shareholdings in gambling operators, reducing the net benefit to the state still further.
A Shrinking Tax Base
| Year | Tax Rate | Projected Additional Revenue | Actual Additional Revenue | Variance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 34.2% | €108M | €2M | −€106M (−98%) |
| 2026 | 37.8% | €216M | €57M | −€159M (−74%) |
30.5%
Dutch gambling tax rate before January 2025
34.2%
Rate applied from 1 January 2025
€108M
Projected additional revenue for 2025
€2M
Actual additional revenue collected in 2025
37.8%
Rate applied from 2026
€57M
Actual additional revenue collected in 2026 vs €216M projected
The monitor identifies two primary drivers behind the underperformance. First, player protection measures introduced during the measured period depressed the gross gambling result (BSR) across operators, directly eroding the tax base. Second, the tariff increase itself appears to have driven closures of physical gambling locations where profitability became untenable.
Crucially, the monitor stops short of drawing conclusions on broader market effects – including channelization rates and charitable or sports contributions – because multiple policy changes, including advertising restrictions, were implemented simultaneously, making attribution impossible. This challenge is consistent with the pattern observed when the Dutch Kansspelautoriteit warned of market stagnation as illegal operators gained ground, complicating the regulatory picture still further.
For Operators Navigating Simultaneous Policy Shifts
When multiple regulatory changes — such as tax rate hikes, advertising restrictions, and player protection measures — are introduced concurrently, operators should maintain granular reporting on each policy's individual impact on gross gambling result (BSR). The Dutch monitor explicitly found attribution impossible due to overlapping reforms. Operators who document baseline BSR figures before each policy change create a stronger evidentiary basis for engaging regulators in future consultations on tax calibration.
Lessons for Fiscal Policy in Regulated Gambling
The findings raise a fundamental question for regulators and finance ministries across Europe: can aggressive tax rate increases coexist with tightening player protection regimes without cannibalising the very revenue base they target? The Dutch experience suggests the two policy levers can work against each other when applied concurrently, with compliance costs and BSR compression leaving operators with less taxable income than projected. The KSA's separate analysis of EU-wide gaming growth against Dutch stagnation provides further context for why revenue projections fell so short. Decision-makers considering similar dual-track approaches should treat this monitor as a cautionary data point, alongside the French gaming market's contrasting trajectory reaching €14.1bn as online sectors drove growth under a different regulatory configuration.
The Finance Ministry and Kansspelautoriteit monitor has documented a significant deviation from projections, creating a basis for fiscal policy review. However, the report contains no recommendations on rate adjustments — that question remains open for legislators. Operators should monitor official statements from both bodies regarding next steps.
The monitor explicitly acknowledges that the introduction of advertising restrictions, player protection measures, and the tax rate increase within the same period makes it impossible to determine which specific change caused any given outcome. This means the true fiscal effect of the rate change alone is unknown. Regulators in other countries planning similar reforms should account for this methodological risk when designing and evaluating policy.
Based on the Dutch monitor's findings, key indicators include: gross gambling result (BSR) trends broken down by channel, the number of physical gambling locations that close following a tax increase, and changes in state revenues from equity stakes in operators. The source does not detail the threshold values at which these indicators should signal a need for course correction, so regulators should define these in advance.
According to KSA.
Legal Disclaimer
This content reflects a general overview of regulatory frameworks based on publicly available information. It does not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion. iGamingWriter.blog disclaims any liability arising from reliance on this material.
