How the Introduction of Betting Tax in Austria Weakens Player Protection

On 1 April 2025, the Austrian government implemented a significant increase in the betting fee: the levy on sports bets (the so-called “Rechtsgeschäftsgebühr” under the Austrian Fees Act) rose from 2% of the stake to 5%, i.e., a 150% increase. (OE24) While viewed by the state as a simple budget measure, this reform entails profound risks for player protection, and may paradoxically undermine what the regulatory apparatus intends to safeguard. In this article, I will analyse how the tax increase may weaken player protection via market distortion, reduced transparency, higher informal risk, and less capacity for responsible gambling infrastructure, aimed at a broadly informed but non-technical audience.

1. The Tax Hike: A Quick Overview

Until the end of March 2025, licensed bookmakers in Austria paid a fee of 2% of each wager (i.e., the bet amount) to the state. (PokerFirma). From 1 April 2025 the fee increases to 5% of the wager amount. (Bundesministerium für Finanzen). The increase was originally envisaged to be phased (e.g., 3.5% later in 2025, then 5% in 2026) but was brought forward. (OTS.at) The government estimated additional annual revenues of about EUR 50 million from the increase. (Bundesministerium für Finanzen) 

So the headline fact: from April 2025, every euro wagered in Austria by a licensed operator carries a duty of 5% of the stake instead of 2%.

2. Intended Policy Rationale

From the state’s perspective, the increase forms part of a broader consolidation package of tax and fee-measures. The rationale includes:

• Addressing budget-deficit pressures and raising additional revenue (e.g., via the betting fee). (Bundesministerium für Finanzen)

• Aligning Austria’s fee structure for betting more closely with comparable gambling taxes (the government document notes that 2% was low relative to the general gambling tax of 16 % of the stake). (Bundesministerium für Finanzen)

• Ensuring a fairer burden-sharing among licensed operators and closing perceived asymmetries (e.g., online vs offline). (Beaumont Capital Markets)

In other words: the government treats the betting market like another taxable commercial sector, and uses the tax as a lever for fiscal consolidation and regulatory equalisation.

3. Why Player Protection is at Risk

While the tax increase is a fiscal/regulatory measure, there are at least four interlinked channels through which the measure may weaken player protection.

3.1. Pressure on Licensed Operators: Cost-Shifting, Reduced Safeguards

Licensed bookmakers in Austria face a substantially higher overhead on each wager. As many reports document, the industry has raised alarm at the suddenness and magnitude of the increase: “Eine Steuererhöhung um 150% in drei Wochen, das ist brutal für die Branche.” (OE24)

What does this mean for player protection?

Operators may seek to compensate by reducing investment in compliance, responsible gambling tools (e.g., self-exclusion systems, monitoring of risky behaviour), customer support or lowering odds, which can reduce the margin available to fund such protection. Some operators may shift costs onto customers (though this is reported variably) by reducing bonuses, increasing minimum stakes, or reducing promotions, which in turn may push players towards less-favourable terms or riskier offers. (lohnsteuer-runter.at) Smaller or marginal operators may exit or reduce their Austrian presence altogether, reducing competition and potentially leaving niche segments of players underserved or shifting to less-regulated providers. (www.onlinecasinosdeutschland.com) Thus, the tax may indirectly reduce the resources available to maintain strong player-protection frameworks in the licensed market.

3.2. Market Distortion and a Rise in Unlicensed/Grey-Market Activity

A strong argument is that as licensed operators become costlier, the attractiveness of switching to unlicensed or offshore operators (with lower cost bases or different tax burdens) increases. That threatens player protection because unlicensed operators are typically less regulated, with weaker consumer protection, weaker monitoring of problematic betting behaviour, and less transparency.

Some sources note that the reform could trigger exactly that risk: “Die legale Branche rechnet mit einem sinkenden Marktanteil.” (www.onlinecasinosdeutschland.com) If players move to less-safe offerings, then overall protection may deteriorate.

3.3. Less Favourable Odds and Increased Risk Burden on Players

Another mechanism: when operators’ cost bases rise, one way to maintain profitability is to reduce the payout ratio (i.e., the odds offered), raise the margin, or restrict offers. This means that from a player perspective, the value of the bet decreases. When bets carry higher embedded “tax costs” (even if the tax is paid by the operator, but reflected in odds), the effective remuneration for the player falls.

From a behavioural perspective, this may nudge players into making riskier bets (to chase higher returns) or reduce the incentive to engage safely (because the “value” is reduced). The combined effect – weaker odds plus higher tax – creates a less favourable playing field for the user.

3.4. Reduced Sponsorship and Social-Responsibility Funding

Operators often fund sports sponsorships, community programmes, and problem gambling interventions (via CSR) supported by their margin. If margins shrink, or resources are diverted to tax, then budgets for such programmes may be cut. The sources highlight concern from the industry that the sponsorship side will suffer: (MeinBezirk.at) Less sponsorship of local sports means fewer positive channels for responsible gaming culture (e.g., sports clubs as outreach sites) in the ecosystem.

4. Illustrative Quotes From the Industry

• From the business media outlets: “Die Regierung will die Steuern auf Sportwetten jetzt viel schneller erhöhen als ursprünglich … Eine Steuererhöhung um 150% in drei Wochen, das ist brutal für die Branche.” (OE24)

• From an industry association: The Österreichischer Sportwettenverband warned of “dramatische Auswirkungen und existenzbedrohenden Umwälzungen” and asked for an “ausreichend bemessene Übergangsfrist”. (MeinBezirk.at)

These statements underline the urgency and discontent in the industry, implicitly pointing to protective mechanisms (jobs, regulatory compliance, sponsorship) that may be vulnerable.

5. Regulatory Paradox: More Tax, Less Protection

From a policy perspective, the increase in the betting fee may appear neutral or even pro-consumer (the state is raising revenue; licensed operators remain regulated). However, when viewed through the lens of player protection, a paradox emerges: by increasing the tax burden, the state risks weakening the regulated market’s capacity to deliver robust protections and may thereby indirectly elevate risk.

This paradox can be summarised as:

More tax burden → less margin for the operator → reduced investment in protection and/or shift to less-safe providers → weaker player protection.

Additionally, the move may crowd out small or innovative operators (reducing competitive pressure) and enlarge the grey market ( which is less regulated). In the long run, this may undermine the aim of a regulated, transparent, safe sports-betting market.

6. What Could Be Done to Safeguard Player Protection?

Given the risks, if one accepts that player protection is a legitimate concern, several mitigating measures could be pursued:

• Transitional phase: Rather than a one-step jump to 5%, a phased increase (e.g., 3.5% first, then 5%) would allow operators to adapt without an abrupt cost shock, which was in fact proposed. (OTS.at)

• Ring-fenced funds: Part of the additional tax revenue could be explicitly earmarked for responsible gambling programmes, prevention of problem betting, and oversight. This would offset the potential reduction in operator funds.

• Maintaining competitive market access: Ensuring that small and mid-sized operators can still compete (e.g., via regulatory fairness) helps maintain choice, innovation, and pressure for good consumer protections.

• Monitoring grey-market migration: Regulatory bodies should monitor for increased activity via unlicensed operators and ensure enforcement deters migration of players to less-safe providers.

• Transparency for players: With higher embedded tax burdens, players should be made aware of the impact on odds and terms; ensuring clarity helps them make informed decisions.

7. Conclusion

The hike of the betting fee in Austria from 2% to 5% of the stake, effective from 1 April 2025, is a bold fiscal measure by the Austrian government. It is part of a broader budget consolidation and regulatory alignment. However, by significantly raising the cost base for licensed operators, it introduces structural risks to the regulated market’s ability to uphold strong player protection standards. Unless matched with mitigating measures, the reform could contribute to weaker safeguards for bettors: reduced operator investment in protection, less favourable terms, increased migration to grey markets, and a diminished regulated market.

From a policy-design perspective, large tax increases in sectors where consumer vulnerability is an issue (such as gambling) should be carefully calibrated, not simply from a revenue angle, but from a player-risk and protection angle. In the Austrian case, the speed and scale of the increase raise questions about whether the protection architecture was sufficiently considered.

For those engaged in regulatory oversight, gambling policy, or consumer advocacy, the Austrian change offers an important case study: how tax reform, market regulation and player protection interact and how a move intended to “align” and “raise revenue” might have unintended consequences for the very public-policy goal of protecting vulnerable players.

References & Further Reading

“Sportwetten werden um 150 % (!) teurer: ‘Das ist brutal’” – OE24. (OE24)

“Massive Gebührenerhöhung: Sportwettenverband schlägt Alarm” – MeinBezirk.at. (MeinBezirk.at)

Austrian Ministry of Finance press release on consolidation measures (including betting fee). (Bundesministerium für Finanzen)

Lohnsteuer-Runter article on sports betting taxation and market impact. (lohnsteuer-runter.at)

OnlineCasinosDeutsch article assessing market share and risk of legal sector. (www.onlinecasinosdeutschland.com)

---

Author Bio: Roman is well known for his more than 20 years of experience in responsible gambling. Link: https://www.linkedin.com/in/roman-ne%C3%9Fhold-a51678119/

Explore these and other topics at Eventus International’s upcoming events: https://www.eventus-international.com/