You can’t tax a casino if it’s closed
Modern casinos are regulated entertainment destinations that invest in city centres, support skilled local careers and strengthen Britain’s visitor and night-time economy. Tax policy should recognise their full contribution, says Paul Willcock
Politicians of every party say they want businesses to invest in Britain, regenerate city centres, create good jobs and attract overseas visitors. Genting is doing exactly that, from Manchester to the West End. Yet a proposal to double the tax on gaming machines from 20 to 40 per cent would pull in the opposite direction. It would discourage investment, put jobs at risk and could leave the Treasury with less revenue, not more.
The debate should not be framed simply as a dispute about one gambling tax. It raises a broader question: what kind of leisure, visitor and night-time economy does Britain want? If government wants private capital, thriving city centres, skilled local employment and sustainable tax revenues, it must consider the whole contribution made by modern land-based casinos.
A modern casino is not simply a room of machines. It is a people-intensive entertainment destination combining hospitality, food and drink, live gaming, entertainment and socialising. It sits within the same experience economy as restaurants, hotels, theatres, pubs and other leisure venues. Gaming is central to the business, but it does not define the whole institution.
Transforming the Trocadero
Our plans for the London Trocadero embody that proposition. We are planning a £50m transformation of an underused part of this Grade II-listed entertainment landmark. Across 37,000 sq ft and three floors, the development would combine a casino with food, drink and entertainment. It would create between 350 and 400 permanent Genting jobs and support at least 350 more through design, development and construction.
This is more than casino investment. It is private capital bringing vacant space in an important historic building back into productive use. At a time when city centres are adapting to changing retail patterns and pressure on hospitality, land-based leisure businesses create physical footfall and economic activity that cannot be outsourced. They draw people into an area and help sustain the hotels, restaurants, theatres, shops, bars and transport services around them.
Casino economics is ecosystem economics. When a visitor spends an evening at a casino, the value generated rarely begins or ends at the venue’s doors. The same visit can support a nearby hotel, a pre-theatre meal, a taxi journey, a bar or a late-night food business. Equally, when an established casino closes, the effect is not confined to its own employees or tax contribution. The surrounding night-time economy can lose footfall and spending too.
The same principle applies beyond London. In Manchester, we have committed millions to refurbishing our Portland Street Casino. Since Genting entered the UK market, we have invested close to £1bn in improving our casino estate, from Edinburgh and Glasgow to Plymouth. These are long-term commitments to places, properties and people. A tax policy that weakens the commercial case for that investment will have consequences far beyond a single line on a casino’s accounts.
Our modelling suggests that 13 of our 32 casinos would become unprofitable or unsustainable. More than 850 jobs in those venues would be at risk, together with around 50 roles in the teams that support them
For Genting, doubling machine duty would add about £16m a year to our cost base. Our modelling suggests that 13 of our 32 casinos would become unprofitable or unsustainable. More than 850 jobs in those venues would be at risk, together with around 50 roles in the teams that support them.
Those numbers matter, but this is also a skills and careers issue. Casinos employ croupiers, chefs, bar staff, cleaners, security officers, customer-service teams and managers. These are inherently local roles, supported by training, experience and opportunities to progress. They form part of Britain’s wider hospitality employment base and provide the human infrastructure that makes a safe, well-run leisure venue possible.
That responsibility is fundamental to the case for land-based casinos. The public-policy question is not simply whether gambling takes place, but where and under what conditions it takes place. Licensed physical casinos operate in visible, highly regulated environments with age controls, security, trained staff, customer interaction, intervention and regulatory oversight. Well-run operators should be expected to demonstrate the highest standards of responsibility and consumer protection in return for the opportunity to invest, employ and operate.
Casinos also contribute to Britain’s international competitiveness as a visitor destination. Where nationality is recorded, around half of Genting’s tracked attendance comes from non-British visitors. Their spending is not confined to gaming. It supports accommodation, food and drink, retail, theatre and other attractions. London and other UK cities compete internationally for leisure visitors and their spending, and casinos are one part of the mix of experiences that keeps Britain attractive.
Tax policy must also consider the distinction between regulated and unregulated gambling. It would be wrong to overstate or assume a direct displacement effect. But if highly regulated, visible operators and venues become less viable, government should assess where demand may move and what that could mean for consumer protection. Weakening the regulated sector without considering the alternatives would be a serious policy omission.
There is also a basic fiscal problem with the proposed rise. Casinos that remain open would pay more machine duty, but those forced to close would stop paying a range of taxes altogether. Our modelling indicates that the revenue lost through closures would outweigh the additional machine duty collected from the remaining venues. The Treasury could raise the rate and still receive less overall, while hundreds of skilled employees lose their jobs.
Genting has a long record of contributing to the public finances. Between 2016 and 2025, we paid more than three-quarters of a billion pounds in taxes, duties and levies while investing heavily in our estate. The relevant question is not whether the headline rate can be increased. It is whether the policy strengthens that long-term contribution or undermines it.
Before making any change, the Treasury should assess the impact on individual venues, employment, investment, city-centre regeneration, the visitor economy, consumer protection and total tax receipts. Government says it wants private investment, growth, tourism and thriving high streets and city centres. It should not pursue a policy that weakens businesses delivering precisely those outcomes.
Modern land-based casinos should be regarded for what they increasingly are: regulated entertainment destinations with gambling at their core, but with a contribution that extends far beyond it. A policy that turns investment into closures is not pro-growth. A tax rise that costs jobs, weakens regulated venues and ultimately raises less revenue is not reform. It is self-defeating. You cannot tax a casino that has closed.
Paul Willcock is CEO of Genting UK