Slovakia Debates Levy Reductions on Gambling Venues

Slovakia Debates Levy Reductions on Gambling Venues

Lawmakers in Slovakia are once again divided over how much land-based gambling operators should contribute to the state budget, with disputes centering on whether previously proposed fee increases should be restored or revised. The discussion gained renewed visibility after the Slovakia Movement, a political faction often associated with business-aligned messaging despite its populist undertones, challenged the government’s decision to reduce proposed charges on physical gambling venues.

The initial plan put forward by lawmakers involved a flat fee of €9,300 for every additional slot machine or table installed in a land-based facility. That figure has now been cut significantly. Current government plans set the fee at €4,400 for each slot in gaming halls and €6,000 for every video terminal in a physical venue. Members of the Slovakia Movement argue that reducing the original number could have a measurable impact on state finances.

Michal Šipoš and Július Jakab, who have positioned themselves at the forefront of this push, believe the revised charges represent an unnecessary concession to operators. They claim the difference between €9,300 and the updated lower fees could result in as much as €52m in foregone public revenue. From their perspective, framing the decision as a policy adjustment understates its fiscal and social implications. They have publicly outlined the matter as a form of tax allowance favoring larger operators, pointing to rising player losses as evidence that the sector can absorb higher obligations.

In their public remarks, the lawmakers have described a trend of increasing spending among those who frequent gambling venues. They reference data that suggests average losses have multiplied several times in recent years. According to their line of argument, this reflects an industry that has grown despite external economic pressures and should therefore be expected to meet additional fiscal responsibilities. One of their core claims is that the current system allows profits to flow outward without enough being returned to the state to offset the associated social consequences.

Jakab, in particular, has been vocal about the contrast between company revenues and tax policy. In comments to local media, he referred to an estimated €1.5bn lost by gamblers in the past year. His framing suggests those losses help sustain the profitability of a concentrated group of operators, meaning that lower fees represent a missed opportunity to collect revenue at a time when governments across the region are reassessing tax models. While his language is at times framed in moral terms, the broader argument is centered on the state’s responsibility to ensure public income aligns with market performance.

Šipoš has pointed to neighboring countries as reference points for regulatory direction. Austria and Poland appear to be his primary examples of states that apply what he considers to be stricter or more diversified structures for collecting gambling-related revenue. He notes that Slovakia’s current regime already comprises a combination of flat fees and a 27 percent tax on gross gaming revenue, yet he believes additional charges should reflect market evolution and inflationary impact rather than be modified downward.

Poland’s system receives particular attention in this comparison. There, a 12 percent tax is applied to stakes in sports betting, while slot machines and table games face a 50 percent tax on net revenue. The structure also includes a withholding tax on winnings, set at 10 percent. While this aspect does not directly resemble the proposal under discussion in Slovakia, it serves as an example lawmakers use to illustrate the possibilities of more stringent revenue collection.

Polish authorities recently confirmed interest in amending their withholding policies further. The Ministry of Finance intends to raise the rate from 10 to 15 percent, with implementation planned for early 2026. In addition, the proposed framework would extend coverage to winnings from platforms based both within and beyond the European Union. This shift indicates an effort to close tax gaps that may emerge when cross-border activity remains unaccounted for under national rules. The move has sparked debate among stakeholders, but it aligns with a wider trend in which governments are seeking to ensure that digital and land-based operations are treated with comparable scrutiny.

The debate in Slovakia has not yet produced a finalized resolution, and it is unclear whether the current proposal will remain unchanged or be reconsidered before any formal vote. The Slovakia Movement is pressing for a reversion to the original €9,300 figure, arguing that partial reductions weaken the intended impact of regulation. Government officials have not ruled out adjustments, but there has been no indication that they plan to reinstate the earlier number in full.

Market participants are preparing for a range of outcomes. Land-based operators must navigate uncertainty around their licensing and operating costs at a time when some districts are reassessing the presence of physical venues altogether. The political nature of the debate means any change will likely be accompanied by public messaging that emphasizes either consumer protection or fiscal accountability. For now, the outcome hinges on whether legislators prioritize immediate revenue generation or remain concerned that higher fees could limit investment in physical premises.