Recent statistics reveal a noteworthy increase in gaming machine revenue from licensed bingo establishments in the UK, prompting critics to express concern over this growing trend. One prominent voice in the gambling harm advocacy community labeled bingo a "trojan horse" for gaming machine operations.
According to the latest data from the Gambling Commission, gaming machines generated £461.7 million in gross gambling yield (GGY) for bingo operators in the year ending March 2026, while traditional bingo games contributed significantly less at £242.1 million. This means machines accounted for nearly two-thirds of the total GGY of £703.8 million in the sector.
This trend has become increasingly clear. Revenue from gaming machines in bingo venues soared from around £293 million in 2019-20 to £462 million in 2025-26, marking a 57% rise. Specifically, revenue from Category B machines, which are the higher-stake options found in bingo halls, increased from about £197 million to £361 million during the same timeframe. Consequently, Category B machines represented approximately 78% of bingo machine GGY in the last financial year, up from about 67% in 2019-20.
While these figures might indicate that gaming machines have grown more essential to traditional bingo clubs, they obscure a significant transformation within the bingo venue landscape. A rising number of establishments hold bingo licenses yet operate similarly to adult gaming centers (AGCs), where gaming machines dominate the offerings.
The UK government recognized these concerns in its October 2025 consultation on bingo licensing, stating there was a “growing number” of licensed bingo venues primarily focused on gaming machines. Some of these venues dedicated significant floor space to machines, branding them as their main attractions.
Data from the Gambling Commission highlighted the financial dynamics within different types of bingo premises. For operators focusing mainly on high-street bingo, less than 1% of GGY stemmed from traditional bingo games, with the remaining 99% from gaming machines. This contrasts sharply with operators emphasizing traditional bingo, where bingo games accounted for 51% of GGY, and those in holiday parks at 55%.
The findings suggest that the term "bingo premises" now identifies at least two distinct business models: one traditional bingo club that hosts scheduled games for large audiences, and another smaller venue where machines serve as the main revenue driver, relegating bingo to a secondary role.
In a closer examination of licensing, iGB noted that among Merkur Slots' 340 venues, 227 were categorized as bingo venues, while only 106 were classified as AGCs. Notably, all these "bingo" establishments resembled AGCs in appearance and function, often with limited signage indicating bingo was played there.
Complicating this issue is the emergence of hybrid venues that blend bingo games with machine offerings, successfully reaching diverse audiences without strictly adhering to traditional club formats. This raises regulatory challenges in distinguishing genuine bingo operations from those primarily resembling arcade-style establishments.
Reviewing the legislation reveals an important provision under the Gambling Commission’s social responsibility code (9.1.2), which mandates that licensed bingo venues must provide "substantive facilities" for non-remote bingo. However, the code lacks a clear definition of what constitutes substantive. The Gambling Act does not stipulate minimum requirements for bingo space, customer numbers, or revenue ratios related to bingo games.
In previous assessments, the Commission intentionally avoided a strict numerical definition to maintain flexibility across different bingo formats, including traditional clubs and newer electronic models. This flexibility, however, has inadvertently allowed for premises where bingo can be technically present but is economically insignificant.
The introduction of electronic bingo terminals adds another layer of complexity, as these devices can present both bingo and machine content simultaneously, thereby muddying the waters of regulatory compliance regarding the primary activity of the venue.
Despite a similarity in allowable gaming machines between both bingo premises and AGCs, significant differences exist. Bingo venues can offer specialized forms of bingo that AGCs cannot, as the latter’s bingo offerings are restricted to qualifying prize gaming. Bingo premises may also obtain a liquor license, allowing for alcohol consumption on-site, an option unavailable at AGCs.
The regulatory status of these venues impacts their customer experience and their adherence to the multi-operator self-exclusion scheme. Moreover, how local licensing authorities perceive these establishments is influenced by their designated category, which consequently affects each venue’s gambling risk profile.
Surveys indicate that machine play is linked with higher rates of gambling-related issues compared to traditional land-based bingo, as the government consultation pointed out. Therefore, a venue primarily focused on machines presents a different risk profile than one with a strong bingo component, irrespective of its license designation.
Notably, the growth in machine-generated revenue does not inherently signify increased harm levels, nor does a higher percentage of machine revenue imply inadequate bingo offerings at traditional venues. A relatively small number of high-stakes gambling products can produce significantly greater GGY than numerous bingo games, potentially misclassifying legitimate bingo establishments.
The ongoing evolution of the bingo sector is evident in the latest UK Gambling Commission data, revealing a concerning shift. According to the Bingo Association, the number of registered traditional bingo clubs plummeted from 335 in December 2018 to just 248 by August 2024. Nevertheless, the total number of bingo premises rose to 714 as of March, up from 688 the previous year, largely balancing the decline in traditional venues with the growth of smaller high-street operations.
The revenue composition reflects this transformation as well. In March 2014, gaming machines accounted for 44% of GGY in licensed bingo establishments. This share grew to 63% by March 2024 and further to 65.6% in 2025-26.
This evolving landscape highlights that the discussion around bingo is not solely about the rising share of machine-generated revenue; it also pertains to the rise of a venue format that has always prioritized gaming machines.
To address these complexities, the government’s consultation proposed the establishment of a specifically defined bingo area within licensed venues, considering options such as requiring a continuous bingo area of 30%, 40%, or 50% of the venue’s space. Machines operating in these spaces would be restricted, with tablets needing to offer bingo content even if they also presented machine games.
They also explored minimum distinct bingo seating requirements, potentially setting targets of 30 or 40 seats, or correlating the number of seats to the size of the bingo area. For operators focused on maintaining a machine-centric business, transitioning to an AGC license was suggested, which would preclude them from offering most types of bingo and could potentially revoke their right to serve alcohol, as well as add licensing costs.
The regulatory challenge lies in balancing the need to protect genuine hybrid formats while preventing token bingo offerings from legitimizing primarily machine-led operations. A minimum seating prerequisite might offer a straightforward measurement, yet it would need to be low enough to cater to credible smaller venues. Alternatively, a floor-space requirement could ensure the visibility of bingo, albeit it might prompt operators to create superficial areas simply to fulfill the required percentages.
Ultimately, the most effective regulatory framework may necessitate both a designated bingo area and a sufficient number of actual bingo positions available for play. The consultation regarding these matters concluded in January, but subsequent shifts in government leadership have left the industry awaiting a definitive response.
Despite the implications, it is crucial to clarify that machine-led bingo venues are not operating illegally. However, the challenge remains that existing legislation has fallen short in defining the necessary scope of bingo to qualify as a true bingo hall. Today, one licensing category encompasses venues ranging from large destination clubs with extensive bingo offerings to small high-street locations generating 99% of their revenue from machines. The government acknowledges the need to recalibrate the distinctions between bingo venues and AGCs, but how they plan to execute this without jeopardizing the bingo establishments originally intended to be safeguarded remains an open question.
