Prime Minister,
The future of Britain's betting shops and our high streets
I am writing ahead of the Autumn Budget to ask you to consider the impact that a substantial increase in Machine Games Duty (MGD) would have on thousands of people working in betting shops and on communities across Britain.
You have spoken about the “Makerfield Test” – the principle that national policy should deliver for places and people that have too often been overlooked by Westminster. Entain has a long history on British high streets through our Ladbrokes and Coral brands. We employ more than 13,000 people in the UK, more than 12,000 of them in around 2,300 betting shops, including three in Makerfield.
Many of those shops have been part of their local communities for decades, providing jobs, supporting local economies and offering familiar, staffed places where customers meet and interact. We therefore wanted to make clear the impact that decisions taken in the upcoming Budget could have on thousands of people and communities if that test is not fully reflected in the outcome. A substantial increase in MGD would therefore bear directly on many of the people and places the Makerfield Test is intended to support.
Doubling the standard rate of MGD to 40% would add around £100 million to the annual cost of running our UK retail business. Independent modelling commissioned by the BGC from EY[1] shows the potential consequences across the sector, indicating that a 40% MGD rate could lead to up to 1,470 betting shop closures and 15,900 job losses, and ultimately result in a net loss to the Exchequer of around £120 million. These are not theoretical efficiencies in a financial model. They are people losing their jobs and communities losing long-established high-street businesses.
These jobs matter. They matter particularly in communities where good local employment can be difficult to find. Half of our retail colleagues are women; 52% work part-time or flexible hours; and more than one in five (2,570) are aged under 25. We have recruited 1,920 young people since 2024 alone. For many colleagues, retail provides a first job, a route back into employment or a role that can fit around family and other commitments. For others, it is the beginning of a long-term career. We have shop managers who have worked with us for decades. Our colleague engagement scores are above 90, and our lowest-paid colleagues earn £13 an hour, above the National Living Wage. Our colleagues are proud to work for a business that invests in its people and takes seriously its responsibility to customers.
Ladbrokes and Coral betting shops are sports and racing businesses, with machine gaming only one part of a much broader offer. They are long-established, staffed community hubs, many with roots stretching back decades in the same towns and high streets. They provide local jobs and familiar places where customers meet, talk about sport, racing and local life, while our colleagues support local charities and community initiatives. Machine income helps diversify the economics of a sports led business between fixtures and races. That role is particularly important in smaller towns and rural communities, where our shops can provide customers with a regular opportunity to meet and interact with others. Our estate has national reach, and in many of these communities the jobs we provide would not be easily replaced if a shop were to close.
While gambling is enjoyed responsibly by millions of adults, we recognise that it can cause serious harm for a minority. Our shops, and crucially the colleagues who work in them, form part of the infrastructure that helps protect those customers. They undertake age verification, are trained to recognise signs of potentially harmful gambling and can speak directly to a customer when something does not look right. They support self-exclusion arrangements and provide an environment that is visible, accountable, staffed and highly regulated.
A visit to the betting shop, a football accumulator or a bet on the Grand National remains part of the sporting and social lives of many people across Britain. I believe it is possible both to protect those at risk of harm and to respect the freedom of adults to enjoy a lawful pastime responsibly.
A tax increase of the proposed scale would also risk pushing gambling activity away from the regulated high street rather than simply reducing it. The same EY modelling forecasts that, in the extreme, an MGD increase to 40% would cause around £1 billion of stakes to leave the legal retail market. That contraction would also risk accelerating migration to illegal gambling. Frontier Economics already estimates that £1.6 billion is bet each year through illegal, land-based gambling.
That matters not only for consumer protection, but for jobs and sustainable tax revenues. Every wager that moves from a licensed British operator to the illegal market moves from a business that employs people here, pays UK gambling duties and supports British sport to one that does none of those things. The Office for Budget Responsibility has already estimated that behavioural responses would reduce the yield from the gambling tax measures announced at Budget 2025 by around one-third, including a £500 million reduction in forecast receipts by 2029-30 arising partly from displacement towards the illegal market.
The better outcome for communities and the public finances is to keep gambling within the regulated sector and, wherever possible, bring activity currently taking place illegally back into it. Doing so would protect British jobs and high-street businesses while turning untaxed gambling activity into activity that contributes to the Exchequer and supports British sport.
There would be wider consequences too. Our shops support economic activity through wages, employment taxes, business rates and spending throughout their supply chain. Our retail estate also contributes approximately £50 million each year to British horseracing, supporting another industry which is woven deeply into communities across the country. We also have a direct stake in the future of British greyhound racing: Entain owns three greyhound stadia and employs people across those venues, while our betting shops help support the wider economics of the sport.
Fewer viable shops would therefore have consequences not only for our own colleagues and high streets, but for jobs and livelihoods across both racing industries. The impact would go well beyond media rights and the Levy. Fewer shops and a weaker retail sector would also mean less sponsorship and commercial support flowing into horseracing, greyhound racing and the wider network of sports and communities that benefit from that investment.
I hope that, before any decision is taken on MGD, the Government will look beyond the headline tax rate and consider the real-world consequences for the people whose livelihoods depend on these businesses and the communities in which they operate.
We are not asking to be insulated from taxation. Indeed, Entain is one of the UK's top 20 taxpayers. However, this would also come on top of substantial tax increases already imposed on the sector. Remote Gaming Duty rose from 21% to 40% in April this year, following the 2025 Budget, and a new 25% rate of General Betting Duty on most remote betting will take effect from April 2027. A further doubling of Machine Games Duty would therefore add another significant cost to businesses already struggling to absorb major tax increases, stacking the odds against labour-intensive high-street operators and making it harder to sustain shops, jobs and investment in local communities.
I would welcome the opportunity to introduce you and your team to some of the colleagues who run our shops and to share our analysis of what a doubling of MGD would mean for them and for communities across Britain.
I hope you will ensure their voices are heard before any decision is taken in the Autumn Budget, and that the outcome meets the Makerfield Test you have set for your government.
Yours sincerely,
Stella David
Chief Executive Officer
Entain plc