EU iGaming Tax Proposal Would Require Harmonised Definitions Prior to Any Revenue Collection
TL;DR — The EU is debating an online gambling tax for its €2trn 2028-2034 budget that would first require harmonised definitions, scope and tax base across 27 member states. Pinson-Bessonnet notes this could revive harmonisation talks and expand into enforcement against black-market operators. Unanimity is needed twice, creating significant political hurdles.
SCCG Take — Taxation may drive the definitional alignment that standalone regulation has not, yet the double unanimity barrier and black-market risks favour operators prepared for prolonged national fragmentation.
The European Union is examining whether online gambling could serve as a new own resource to help fund its €2trn budget under the Multiannual Financial Framework covering 2028-2034. This discussion, while framed around taxation, would first compel the 27 member states to agree on common definitions, scope of activities and a harmonised tax base that do not currently exist at EU level.
Claire Pinson-Bessonnet, founding partner of CPB Avocats, argues in an analysis for SBC News that the legal steps to create such a resource would inevitably surface broader questions about the sector’s fragmented regulation. The European Parliament has already highlighted the tension: gambling is increasingly digital and cross-border yet remains subject to divergent national regulatory and taxation frameworks.
Defining the Scope Before Any Tax Can Apply
Before member states can settle on a contribution mechanism, they must first determine what exactly is being taxed. This includes whether the scope covers all online gambling activities or only subsets such as sports betting, casinos, bingo or poker. The European Commission has also flagged the question of whether land-based gambling should be included.
Pinson-Bessonnet explains: “Before Member States can decide how an EU gambling contribution should be calculated, they first have to agree on what exactly is being taxed. That means agreeing on definitions, activities and a harmonised tax base that simply do not exist at European level today.” Even Gross Gaming Revenue lacks a binding EU-wide definition.
The process would likely require an EU directive for harmonisation, followed by a separate Own Resources Decision under Article 311 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Both steps demand unanimity, creating two distinct political hurdles. Routes under Article 113 TFEU or Article 115 TFEU could signal different depths of alignment, with the latter potentially reaching beyond pure fiscal matters.
Where Enforcement and Black Market Risks Surface
Any EU-level tax would add costs to regulated operators already competing against offshore unlicensed firms. The Commission itself notes that illegal operators capture substantial market share in some jurisdictions and would require “particular attention.”
Pinson-Bessonnet states: “An EU-level fiscal initiative would need extra arbitrages, for example additional measures to avoid compliant actors bearing additional costs while illegal ones would remain unaffected or even favoured.” A tax debate could therefore rapidly expand into coordinated enforcement on unlicensed operators, payments and advertising.
The proposal does not automatically deliver full harmonisation of licensing, consumer protection or authorisation. It would, however, force collective agreement on core concepts in an area long reserved for national control. Member states such as Malta, which once pushed for greater internal-market recognition of online gambling, may now approach such alignment more cautiously when revenue allocation is at stake.
This fiscal pressure creates a practical reason to revisit questions that have previously stalled. Whether that leads to lasting regulatory progress depends on whether the political will exists to move beyond taxation into consistent standards across the 27 jurisdictions.
Reporting: SBC News
Generated by SCCG’s automated editorial system from published source reporting. SCCG Management holds editorial responsibility.
Tax may finally trigger the regulatory alignment that standalone policy couldn't — but double unanimity and black-market risks are formidable.
We have operated in every regulated EU market and have seen firsthand how fragmentation kills efficiency and invites offshore grey operators. If taxation forces definitional alignment — GGR, scope, enforcement — it reshapes compliance, M&A and market entry across 27 jurisdictions. That is a structural shift, not a budget footnote.
- €2trn EU budget debate requires harmonised definitions, tax base and scope before any online gambling levy can apply
- Double unanimity needed: one directive for harmonisation, one Own Resources Decision — creating two political veto points
- Black-market enforcement likely expands as EU tax raises licensed operator costs and grey-market appeal
SCCG angle: SCCG works with operators, regulators and suppliers in every EU market. We help clients model compliance risk across fragmented regimes and position for harmonisation scenarios — whether that means M&A timing, licensing strategy or black-market mitigation — using our on-the-ground network in all 27 member states.
Gaming, betting and prediction markets — the desk’s read, every weekday.
Subscribe →