The latest figures from the UK’s Gambling Commission reveal a considerable rise in revenue from gaming machines in licensed bingo establishments, prompting concerns from critics. One gambling harm advocate labeled bingo as a "trojan horse" for gaming machine operations.
In the year leading up to March 2026, gaming machines generated £461.7 million in gross gambling yield (GGY) for bingo operators, significantly overshadowing the £242.1 million earned from traditional bingo games. This means that nearly two-thirds of the bingo sector's total GGY of £703.8 million came from machines. The trend is disturbing: bingo premises' machine GGY soared from roughly £293 million in 2019-20 to £462 million in 2025-26, marking a 57% increase. Specifically, the revenue from Category B machines, which allow higher stakes, rose from about £197 million to £361 million during the same timeframe.
In the most recent financial year, Category B machines represented around 78% of bingo machine GGY, up from 67% in 2019-20. These figures may imply that gaming machines have become increasingly critical for traditional bingo clubs, particularly as attendance declines and operational costs rise, but the numbers may hide a more complex issue.
There is a growing trend of licensed bingo venues that operate and look more like adult gaming centers (AGCs), leading the government to acknowledge this in an October 2025 consultation on bingo licensing. It noted the emergence of a "growing number" of licensed bingo establishments focused primarily on gaming machines, making them hard to differentiate from AGCs, where machines often dominate the space and are prominently advertised.
Information from the Gambling Commission shows that, among operators primarily involved in what the Bingo Association characterizes as high-street bingo, less than 1% of GGY came from actual bingo games, with gaming machines contributing 99%. In contrast, traditional bingo clubs saw 51% of GGY from bingo games, while holiday park operators reported 55% from similar sources.
This data illustrates that bingo venues can now cover very different types of businesses. One category consists of destination clubs with scheduled bingo games and a reliance on machines for extra revenue; the other encompasses smaller high-street venues where machines take center stage, with bingo playing a secondary role.
A detailed examination of license information from Merkur Slots, available through the UK Gambling Commission, found that of its 340 venues, 227 were categorized as bingo venues and only 106 as AGCs. However, all these "bingo" locations resemble AGCs in appearance and operation, merely displaying text indicating that bingo is played there.
Complicating the landscape is the emergence of hybrid venues that combine a genuine bingo offering with machine games, catering to new audiences without replicating the traditional club model. The challenge for regulators lies in distinguishing between legitimate innovation and a mere machine arcade using a bingo licence.
According to the Gambling Commission’s social responsibility code, licensed bingo premises can feature gaming machines only if they provide "substantive facilities" for non-remote bingo. Definitions of "substantive" are vague; there are no specifics on required floor space, minimum bingo game participation, or percentage of revenue from bingo.
The Gambling Act does not demand a minimum number of bingo seats, nor does it define how much space must be allocated for bingo versus machines. Past attempts to set a hard definition were avoided to maintain flexibility for various formats, including traditional clubs and newer models, but that flexibility now permits venues where bingo plays a minimal economic role.
The inclusion of electronic bingo terminals adds another layer of complexity since these tablets can switch between offering bingo and gaming machine content, further obscuring the real focus of a venue’s operations.
Understanding the distinction between a bingo venue and an AGC is crucial, given the regulatory implications. Both can offer Category B3 and B4 machines, limited to 20% of their total machines, though older sites may have additional allowances. However, licensed bingo premises can provide forms of bingo unavailable in AGCs, can apply for alcohol licenses, and have access to a broader range of gambling options, impacting how local authorities and regulators evaluate them.
The implications of a machine-focused venue under a bingo licence present differing regulatory challenges from an AGC offering similar products. Survey evidence links machine play to higher rates of gambling problems than land-based bingo, leading the government to conclude that a venue primarily devoted to machines poses a different risk profile from one that emphasizes bingo.
Yet, revenue growth alone doesn’t equate to increased harm. A high percentage of machine revenue doesn’t inherently mean that a traditional club isn’t offering sufficient bingo opportunities. A handful of higher-paying gaming products can yield more GGY than numerous bingo seats, creating a risk of misclassifying clubs that offer substantial bingo yet excel in more lucrative machine revenue streams.
The UK Gambling Commission’s recent data suggest that this issue is intensifying. Data cited by the government displayed a decrease in registered traditional clubs, from 335 in December 2018 to 248 by August 2024, while the overall count of bingo premises rose from 688 to 714 year-on-year. This rise largely stems from the growth of smaller, high-street locations, counterbalancing the decline of traditional establishments.
Alongside this shift, the revenue distribution has changed, with machines generating 44% of the licensed bingo sector's GGY in 2014, which climbed to 63% by March 2024, and reached 65.6% in 2025-26. The discourse now extends beyond machines taking up more of existing bingo operations; it also involves the rise of formats that were machine-dominant from the start.
Proposals from the government’s consultation include defining a designated bingo area within venues, suggesting requirements of 30%, 40%, or 50% of the total premises. This space would prohibit gaming machines, with tablets needing to present bingo availability regardless of additional games they might host. A minimum seating requirement ranging from 30 to 40 seats was also proposed, with alternative formulas based on the size of the bingo area.
For operators leaning toward machine-led offerings, a path to convert to AGC licensing was also provided, though this would mean relinquishing most bingo forms and potentially alcohol service, alongside higher licensing fees.
Ultimately, the goal is to avoid stifling truly innovative hybrid models while preventing nominal bingo offerings from validating predominantly AGC operations. A straightforward minimum seating requirement could facilitate consistency, provided it remains low enough to sustain viable smaller venues. Alternatively, a floor-space requirement might preserve bingo's visibility while potentially allowing operators to create minimally utilized areas to meet the criteria.
The optimum solution may necessitate both: establishing a recognizably designated bingo area and ensuring a sufficient number of genuine bingo positions. Despite the consultation having concluded in January, shifts in government leadership have left the industry awaiting a response.
This situation doesn't imply that machine-led bingo establishments are breaking the law. The existing regulations have struggled to articulate the precise parameters defining how much bingo must be offered to be considered a legitimate bingo hall. Currently, a single licence category spans from large destination bingo clubs to small high-street venues generating 99% of their revenue from machines. The government acknowledges the blurred lines with AGCs, raising the question of whether it can redefine those boundaries without jeopardizing the very venues it aimed to protect.
