Many in the UK gambling industry feel their voices are being ignored. That feeling has become harder to dismiss as white paper measures have taken effect, gambling taxes have increased and Labour MP Alex Ballinger has argued for the 2005 Gambling Act to be reviewed in light of technological change. Reform keeps arriving, and for many operators the market feels more restrictive.
Remote Gaming Duty has risen from 21% to 40% of gross gambling yield, while a new 25% remote betting rate within general betting duty will apply from April 2027.
Gambling has become a political football. Operators watch MPs chase short-term wins in an unstable political climate while organisations outside the industry often appear to have a louder voice in the policy debate. Plenty in the sector feel they have no way of answering back, and it is hard to blame them.
So when the Gambling Commission invites the industry to put forward proposals on regulatory burden, a degree of scepticism is only natural. Some will read it as engagement after the event rather than a genuine invitation to shape what comes next.
What the Commission has actually asked for
The Commission is asking the industry to point to areas where regulation is creating disproportionate pressure, then back that up with evidence showing what could be changed or adapted without weakening its core licensing objectives.
That covers requirements or guidance that have simply been overtaken, whether by time or by other regulatory change, and no longer do the job they were designed for. It includes the Commission’s own Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice, although proposals can reach beyond them.
White paper measures are, in practical terms, off the table. Affordability checks, enhanced identification checks, the statutory levy and the online slots stake cap are settled, and this exercise is not a route to reopening them. Live policy areas are unlikely to be revisited unless there is strong evidence of adverse consequences.
This is not a consultation, and the Commission has been clear about that. The industry is therefore being asked to do something more disciplined than lobbying. It is being asked to distinguish between regulation it dislikes and regulation that no longer works as intended.
The rough with the smooth
Gambling is licensed because it carries risks relating to crime, fairness, openness, children and vulnerable people. Mature operators know that effective regulation is part of the price of a viable, stable market. Effective regulation also means accounting for the realities of the black market and being proportionate.
Some burdens are necessary. A licensed market needs anti-money-laundering controls, safer-gambling checks and fair terms. Serious operators know that.
But some burdens consume time, money and management attention without obviously improving consumer protection or regulatory oversight. These are areas where firms spend more time interpreting expectations than improving controls.
Making the case properly
The strongest responses will be specific. If an operator wants a requirement changed, it needs to show what the problem is, what the cost is, where the duplication sits and how the licensing objectives would still be protected.
The Commission will not be persuaded by general frustration. It will need evidence and a workable alternative. A proposal that can show the same protection for consumers, or better, with less friction along the way, is the one that gets read twice.
That means keeping its statutory purpose in mind. Gambling must be kept free from crime and conducted fairly and openly. Children and vulnerable people must be protected from harm or exploitation.
This is where the industry has to separate necessary safeguards from avoidable process. The more clearly a proposal does that, the harder it becomes to dismiss.
Take note of past mistakes
There is also a lesson to be learned from the fractured response to the Gambling Act Review. Too many misaligned voices leave decision makers with little coherence to take on board, even when individual ideas have merit.
There is now a chance for trade bodies like the Betting and Gaming Council to organise areas of focus and encourage collaboration across the sector, so the strongest arguments arrive backed by evidence from more than one operator.
In a sector where healthy debate is too often stifled by suspicion and defensiveness, the industry has been invited to make the case for proportionate regulation.
SolutionsHub empowers iGaming and fintech businesses to succeed in any market without complexity. The team of former regulators, government officials and industry veterans provides unparalleled insight into licensing, compliance and operational challenges.
英国博彩业许多人感到自己的声音被忽视。随着白皮书措施生效、博彩税上调，以及工党议员Alex Ballinger主张鉴于技术变革对《2005年博彩法》进行审查，这种感觉愈发难以被忽视。改革不断到来，对许多运营商而言，市场感觉更加受限。
远程博彩税已从博彩总收益的21%上调至40%，而一般博彩税中新的25%远程投注税率将于2027年4月起适用。
博彩已成为政治博弈的筹码。运营商眼看着议员们在不稳定的政治气候中追逐短期政绩，而行业外的组织在政策辩论中往往似乎拥有更大的话语权。业内许多人觉得自己无从回应，这也难怪。
因此，当博彩委员会邀请业界就监管负担提出建议时，一定程度的怀疑是自然而然的。有些人会将其解读为事后参与，而非真正邀请业界塑造未来走向。
委员会实际要求了什么
委员会要求业界指出监管造成不成比例压力的领域，并以证据加以支撑，说明哪些内容可以修改或调整，同时不削弱其核心发牌目标。
这涵盖那些因时间推移或其他监管变化而已被取代、不再发挥其设计功能的要求或指引。其中包括委员会自身的牌照条件与业务守则，不过建议可以超出这些范围。
白皮书措施实际上不在讨论范围内。可负担性检查、强化身份验证、法定征费以及在线老虎机投注上限已成定局，此次工作并非重新开启这些议题的途径。现行政策领域不太可能被重新审视，除非有强烈证据表明存在不利后果。
这不是一次咨询，委员会对此已明确表态。因此，业界被要求做的不是游说，而是更有纪律的事情。它被要求区分自己不喜欢但仍在有效运作的监管，与已不再按预期发挥作用的监管。
好坏参半
博彩之所以需要持牌，是因为它涉及犯罪、公平、公开、儿童及弱势群体方面的风险。成熟的运营商明白，有效监管是市场可行且稳定的代价之一。有效监管也意味着要考虑黑市的现实并做到适度。
有些负担是必要的。持牌市场需要反洗钱管控、更安全的博彩检查以及公平条款。严肃的运营商明白这一点。
但有些负担消耗时间、金钱和管理层精力，却并未明显改善消费者保护或监管监督。在这些领域，企业花更多时间解读期望，而非改进管控。
恰当地提出论据
最有力的回应将是具体的。如果运营商希望改变某项要求，就需要说明问题是什么、成本是多少、重复之处在哪里，以及发牌目标将如何仍得到保障。
委员会不会被泛泛的不满所说服。它需要证据和可行的替代方案。一个能够证明对消费者提供同等或更好保护、同时减少过程中摩擦的建议，才会被认真对待。
这意味着要牢记其法定宗旨。博彩必须远离犯罪，并以公平、公开的方式进行。儿童和弱势群体必须受到保护，免遭伤害或剥削。
这正是业界必须将必要保障与可避免流程区分开来的地方。建议越清晰地做到这一点，就越难以被忽视。
注意过去的错误
从对《博彩法》审查的碎片化回应中，也有一个教训值得吸取。太多不一致的声音让决策者难以获得连贯的意见，即便个别想法有其价值。
现在，像博彩与游戏委员会这样的行业组织有机会梳理重点领域，并鼓励整个行业协作，使最有力的论据得到不止一家运营商的证据支持。
在一个健康辩论常常被猜疑和防御心态所压制的行业里，业界已被邀请为适度监管提出论据。
SolutionsHub 助力iGaming和金融科技企业轻松在任何市场取得成功。这支由前监管者、政府官员和行业资深人士组成的团队，在牌照、合规和运营挑战方面提供无与伦比的洞察。