The UK gambling market is witnessing a significant rise in gaming machine revenue from licensed bingo halls, raising alarms among critics. One campaigner has even labeled bingo a 'trojan horse' for gaming machine operations. Recent figures from the Gambling Commission reveal that for the year ending March 2026, gaming machines generated £461.7 million in gross gambling yield (GGY) for bingo operators, starkly outpacing the £242.1 million earned from bingo games. This means that gaming machines accounted for nearly two-thirds of the total GGY of £703.8 million in the sector.
This shift has grown increasingly evident. The GGY from gaming machines in bingo venues ballooned from approximately £293 million in 2019-20 to £462 million in 2025-26, marking a remarkable 57% increase. Specifically, revenue from Category B machines, which carry higher stakes, rose from about £197 million to £361 million during this timeframe. Consequently, Category B machines made up around 78% of the bingo machine GGY for the latest financial year, up from roughly 67% in 2019-20.
While these numbers could suggest that gaming machines are simply becoming more integral to traditional bingo operations, the broader data reveals a more transformational shift within the industry. An increasing number of licensed bingo premises closely resemble adult gaming centres (AGCs). The government recognized this issue in its October 2025 consultation on bingo licensing, indicating that many bingo locations predominantly feature gaming machines, making them difficult to distinguish from AGCs. In some instances, machines occupy nearly all available space, becoming the most prominent attraction.
Statistics from the Gambling Commission show that operators primarily running what the Bingo Association refers to as high-street bingo venues generate less than 1% of their GGY from bingo games, with the remaining 99% stemming from gaming machines. This is in stark contrast to traditional bingo clubs, where bingo contributes 51% of GGY, and holiday parks, where it accounts for 55%.
This suggests that the term “bingo premises” now describes at least two distinct types of establishments. One type is the traditional club, featuring scheduled games that cater to large groups of players, while the other type consists of smaller venues where machines dominate and bingo plays a minor role.
A recent analysis of Merkur Slots venues, based on information from the UK Gambling Commission, revealed that of the 340 sites, 227 were classified as bingo venues and only 106 as AGCs. However, many of these so-called “bingo” venues function as AGCs. A simple online search through Google Street View confirms that these establishments exhibit characteristics of machine-based gaming operations, despite promoting bingo.
Compounding the situation is the emerging hybrid category, where smaller venues blend a legitimate bingo offer with gaming machines, thereby reaching new audiences without replicating traditional bingo club formats.
Regulatory challenges arise in distinguishing between innovative concepts and venues that operate more like gaming arcades under the guise of bingo licences. Under the Gambling Commission's social responsibility code, licensed bingo premises are required to offer what are termed "substantive facilities" for non-remote bingo. However, the term "substantive" lacks a precise definition, leaving ambiguity around the actual requirements that should be fulfilled.
The Gambling Act does not clarify the necessary proportion of floor space dedicated to bingo or the minimum number of seats required for players. This lack of specificity means a wide array of venue types can exist under the bingo licence, from vibrant traditional clubs to machine-centric locations where bingo’s role is negligible.
Adding to the complexity are electronic bingo terminals capable of offering both bingo and gaming machine content. While only one activity can operate at a time, venues could easily present the appearance of providing bingo while still focusing heavily on machine play.
As for licensing implications, both bingo venues and AGCs typically can host Category B3 and B4 machines, up to 20% of their total machines. However, licensed bingo venues hold certain advantages, including the ability to offer bingo forms not available in AGCs and the option to obtain an alcohol licence, which AGC customers cannot benefit from.
This regulatory differentiation directly affects customer experience and how local authorities gauge the gambling risk associated with each venue. Bingo facilities are thought to carry different risk profiles compared to machine-heavy venues, and surveys indicate that machine play is often linked to higher rates of problem gambling compared to traditional bingo.
Recent data from the Gambling Commission suggests the need for urgent attention. The Bingo Association pointed out a decline in registered traditional clubs, dropping from 335 in December 2018 to 248 in August 2024. Conversely, the number of bingo premises increased from 688 to 714 over the same period. Despite the overall growth in licensed bingo outlets, traditional clubs’ decline remains noteworthy.
Revenue generated from gaming machines has risen as well, representing 44% of bingo sector GGY in the year ending March 2014, and growing to 65.6% by 2025-26. The increase is not merely about machines taking a larger slice of existing bingo businesses; it's also about the emergence of new venue formats driven primarily by gaming machines from the outset.
The government’s consultation has considered reinstating a defined bingo area within licensed venues, suggesting options that would require 30% to 50% of premises to be designated for bingo, prohibiting additional gaming machines in that area. It has also contemplated a minimum number of bingo positions, with proposals for 30 to 40 seats, or correlating the number with the size of the bingo area.
For operators prioritizing machine-based offerings, the consultation also proposed a conversion to an AGC licence, which would restrict their ability to offer most bingo forms and potentially require distancing from alcohol sales, as well as imposing additional licensing expenses.
Striking the right balance will be critical to ensuring that genuine hybrid operations remain viable, while also preventing establishments that provide minimal bingo from utilizing alternative licensing structures. A straightforward minimum seating mandate could offer clear guidance, but it would need to remain low enough to accommodate smaller venues effectively. Alternatively, a floor-space guideline might safeguard bingo’s visibility, though it could inadvertently lead to artificial configurations ensuring compliance without genuine offerings.
Ultimately, the ideal model may necessitate both clear bingo areas and a genuinely available number of playing positions. The consultation that closed in January awaits feedback from governmental changes at higher levels.
While some machine-focused bingo establishments are not necessarily operating outside the law, the existing legislative framework has struggled to delineate the threshold of bingo provision necessary to credibly brand a venue as a bingo hall. Currently, a single licence category encompasses a broad spectrum from destination clubs hosting extensive bingo options to smaller venues where 99% of revenue originates from gaming machines. The government has acknowledged the blurred lines with AGCs and faces the challenge of redefining these boundaries without negatively impacting legitimate bingo operations.
