The chief executives of six of Britain’s biggest bookmakers have written to the Chancellor, John Healey, asking him to rule out any rise in machine games duty (MGD) at the Budget on 28 October, and a day later Racing Post reported that the chief executive of Arena Racing Company (Arc) had put racing’s case to the Treasury in writing. The two letters, which came to light on 14 and 15 October 2026, add new estimates to a campaign that the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) set out on 2 October, when it cited Regulus Partners modelling of a £92m annual loss to racing.

According to the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC), the letter was signed by the chief executives of Entain, Flutter UK & Ireland, bet365, Bally’s Corporation, evoke and Betfred. It asks the Chancellor to rule out further gambling duty increases, including any rise in MGD, and to pause the General Betting Duty increase due in April 2027 until the impact of recent tax rises has been fully assessed.

The EY estimate

The BGC commissioned EY to model doubling MGD on Category B machines to 40 per cent. EY’s range is 690 to 1,470 further betting shop closures, 28 to 34 casino closures and 11,600 to 15,900 job losses, with a net loss to the Exchequer of up to £124m. For horseracing, the letter puts the cost at a minimum of £40m through levy and media rights payments. The BGC says more than 600 betting shops have closed since the 2025 Budget, and that Gambling Commission data show shop numbers in Great Britain down by about 38 per cent since 2015. In a separate release on 13 October, which said 36,000 betting shop jobs were at stake, it said betting shops contribute around £140m a year to British horseracing.

Another tax rise would put thousands of those livelihoods on the line.

Grainne Hurst, Chief Executive, Betting and Gaming Council

The EY figure for racing is well below the Regulus Partners modelling the BHA has used. According to the BHA, Regulus projects 4,050 shop closures and a £92m annual loss to racing, made up of £24m less levy and £68m less media rights income.

Arc’s letter

Racing Post reported on 15 October that it had seen a letter from Martin Cruddace, Arc’s chief executive, to Dan Tomlinson MP, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury. According to the paper, Cruddace wrote that a rise might not raise the revenue intended but would cause considerable and irreversible damage to horse and greyhound racing, which he said still rely heavily on retail betting revenue. He cited the Regulus view that a 40 per cent rate would cut MGD yield by 32 per cent and could leave as many as three quarters of shops unprofitable. He said more than 600 shops had closed since remote gaming duty was nearly doubled at the last Budget, costing racing £17m in media rights and levy income, and warned that sponsorship such as Betfred’s backing of the Classics would be put at risk. The letter has not been published; its contents are as reported by Racing Post. A Treasury spokesperson told the paper that decisions on tax are a matter for the Chancellor to set out at fiscal events.

The same day, Racing Post reported a column by Brant Dunshea, the BHA’s chief executive, in The Sun, warning of a devastating impact on betting shops and on racing’s levy and media rights income, and citing 85,000 jobs in the sport. Dunshea welcomed the government’s earlier decision to exempt betting on racing from the online betting tax increase due in April.

Equanine’s reading

  • Racing now has two published estimates of what an MGD rise would cost it: at least £40m from the bookmakers’ EY work and £92m from Regulus. Racecourses setting 2027 budgets that depend on shop media rights should plan against both until the Budget settles the rate.
  • Racing’s exemption from the online betting duty rise means the MGD decision, not the April increase, is the larger direct risk to levy and media rights.
  • Arc’s letter adds a racecourse operator’s voice to a campaign so far led by the BHA and the bookmakers, and puts sponsorship such as Betfred’s support of the Classics alongside levy and media rights as income at stake.