Fiscal tightening weighs on the Netherlands’ gambling market
The increase in gambling tax in the Netherlands has not produced the expected fiscal outcome. The measure, introduced to strengthen public revenue, together with other regulatory interventions, has added pressure to the regulated market, with visible effects on both the online and land-based sectors.
The Dutch case highlights the often-underestimated point that increasing the tax rate does not automatically mean collecting more revenue. If the market slows, operators’ gross margins fall, and part of the demand shifts towards less-regulated channels, tax receipts may come in below expectations. This situation represents another important development for the gambling sector in the Netherlands, which is facing several changes and making important decisions for the industry.
Gambling tax rose in 2025
From 1 January 2025, the kansspelbelasting, the Dutch gambling tax, rose from 30.5 per cent to 34.2 per cent. The fiscal plan approved by the government also provides for a further increase to 37.8 per cent from 1 January 2026.
The aim of the measure was to increase the sector’s tax contribution and support public finances. However, gambling is a market in which the tax base depends on gross gaming revenue, namely the difference between stakes collected and winnings paid out. If this result falls, even a higher tax can generate lower revenue than forecast.
KSA confirms the tax increase missed its target
According to the Kansspelautoriteit (KSA), the Dutch gambling authority, the tax increase has not had the intended effect. The KSA recorded a decline in gross gaming revenue and, as a result, a reduction in tax revenue compared with expectations. This is the central point of the issue. The measure was designed to increase tax receipts, but market contraction reduced the tax base. In practice, the rate increased, while the taxable volume decreased.
The KSA itself had already warned that an overly aggressive fiscal policy can create tension with the other objectives of regulation: player protection, the sustainability of licensed operators, and tackling illegal supply.
Regulated market under pressure
The tax increase directly affects operators, but it can also have indirect effects on players. To absorb the higher tax burden, companies may cut costs, reduce promotions and investment, lower return-to-player (RTP) percentages, or change playing conditions.
The problem is particularly evident for land-based operators, who must bear higher fixed costs than online operators. According to the KSA, in the first quarter of 2025, the number of gaming halls fell by 9 per cent compared with the previous quarter, then stabilised.
The legal online market is also showing signs of slowing. In its most recent monitoring, the KSA reported a slowdown in gross gaming revenue and raised concerns about the scale of illegal gambling activity.
Channelisation risk
One of the main objectives of online gambling regulation is channelisation, which means directing players towards licensed and regulated operators. However, if the legal market becomes less competitive, some users may be attracted to unauthorised sites. Illegal operators do not pay the same tax, do not comply with the same obligations, and can offer more aggressive conditions. Excessive fiscal pressure on the regulated market, therefore, risks weakening the very supply that should provide greater consumer protection.
The report “Raise or fold”, published before the increase, had already highlighted a fragile balance in the Dutch gambling market. The tax affects not only public revenue but also the industry’s ability to remain sustainable and competitive.
A lesson for the European market
The Netherlands’ case is also interesting for other European markets, where the relationship between taxation, the sustainability of the legal market, and efforts to combat illegal gambling remains a central issue. The Dutch experience, however, shows that the tax rate must be assessed in relation to the regulated market’s resilience. If taxation rises too much, there is a risk of achieving the opposite effect: lower margins for licensed operators, reduced investment, a decline in regulated supply, and revenue below forecast.
The gambling tax increase in the Netherlands was introduced with the clear aim of increasing public revenue. The first official data, however, indicate that the situation is more complex because the market has contracted, revenue has not met expectations, and the regulated sector has entered a phase of greater pressure.
This case shows that gambling taxation cannot be treated in isolation. For it to be effective, it has to raise revenue without undermining legal operators or weakening consumer protection.
This article was originally published on the Italian SiGMA News page on 24 June 2026.
Be part of the action! Join the world’s biggest iGaming community with SiGMA’s Top 10 News countdown. Subscribe HERE for weekly updates, insider insights, and exclusive subscriber-only offers.
