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.
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.
