The UK’s latest gambling statistics reveal a significant rise in gaming machine revenue from licensed bingo establishments, prompting concerns among critics. One gambling harm campaigner described bingo as a "trojan horse" for gaming machine operations.
According to the Gambling Commission's recent figures, gaming machines yielded £461.7 million for bingo operators in the year leading to March 2026, compared to £242.1 million generated from bingo games. This means machines accounted for nearly two-thirds of the sector’s total gross gambling yield of £703.8 million.
From 2019-20 to 2025-26, the gap between these revenues widened substantially. Bingo premises saw a 57% increase in machine gross gambling yield, rising from approximately £293 million to £462 million. Category B machines, which allow for higher stakes, also experienced growth, leaping from about £197 million to £361 million in the same period.
Category B machines now represent roughly 78% of all bingo machine gross gambling yield in the most recent financial year, up from around 67% three years earlier.
These statistics on their own suggest that gaming machines are becoming increasingly vital for traditional bingo venues. Machines have historically enabled large, labor-intensive establishments to cover their costs amid declining attendance and the closure of conventional clubs.
However, these figures obscure a more significant transformation within the bingo sector. An increasing number of venues are licensed for bingo while operating in a manner more akin to adult gaming centres (AGCs).
In its October 2025 consultation on bingo licensing, the government highlighted the proliferation of bingo venues that predominantly feature gaming machines, making it hard to distinguish them from AGCs. Many of these venues have gaming machines occupying a majority of their floor space, emphasizing them as the main attraction for customers.
Data from the Gambling Commission aimed to delineate the different economic realities of various bingo formats. Among operators identified as high-street bingo venues, less than 1% of their gross gambling yield stemmed from bingo games, with the overwhelming majority, 99%, coming from gaming machines. In contrast, bingo games accounted for 51% of gross gambling yield for traditional bingo operators and 55% for those focused in holiday parks.
This comparison indicates that the term "bingo premises" now refers to two distinct types of businesses: one that is a classic club setting with regular bingo games attended by hundreds, and another, smaller venue where machines dominate, and bingo is a secondary aspect.
A review of licensee data for Merkur Slots, found on the UK Gambling Commission's website, revealed of 340 Merkur Slots locations, 227 were categorized as bingo venues, while just 106 were classified as AGCs. A glance at these so-called "bingo" locations shows they often resemble AGCs, featuring only signage indicating that bingo is played there.
The situation is further complicated by the emergence of hybrid venues, which blend bingo offerings with gaming machines, potentially attracting new audiences without adhering to the conventional bingo club structure.
The challenge lies in distinguishing genuine innovation from establishments operating like gaming arcades under the guise of bingo licenses.
Under the Gambling Commission's social responsibility code, specifically provision 9.1.2, licensed bingo venues are only permitted to have machines if they also provide "substantive facilities" for non-remote bingo. However, the term "substantive" is not clearly defined in regulatory language.
The Gambling Act lacks specifics on the required floor space dedicated to bingo, the minimum number of customers that should be able to play, or what percentage of revenue must derive from bingo. There is no established minimum number of bingo seats required.
In previous discussions, the Commission chose not to set a universal numerical definition in order to provide flexibility for various formats, ranging from traditional clubs to newer electronic bingo options. However, this flexibility has also allowed for premises where bingo offerings are present but economically negligible.
Adding to the complexity are electronic bingo terminals that can offer both bingo and machine content, though only one can be played at a time. Therefore, a set of electronic terminals might present bingo as available, while still primarily driving machine play revenue.
The crux of the issue lies in using the availability and presentation of bingo as a standard rather than determining whether bingo constitutes the main activity of a venue.
The distinction between bingo establishments and AGCs is legal yet crucial. Both types of venues can typically include Category B3 and B4 machines, but licensed bingo venues also have the option to provide certain bingo games that AGCs cannot offer, as AGCs are limited to qualifying prize gaming. Additionally, bingo venues may obtain an alcohol license, while AGC patrons are prohibited from consuming alcohol during gambling.
The nature of the venue's licensing influences customer experience, its marketing presentation, and how local authorities assess gambling risks in the area.
There is a difference in regulatory standing between bingo venues that profit mainly from machines versus AGCs, which offer economically similar products.
Research indicates that in-person bingo and machine gaming carry different risk profiles. The government’s consultation referred to survey data showing that machine-based gambling is often associated with higher rates of problem gambling compared to land-based bingo. It noted that venues focused on machine gambling have a distinct risk profile compared to clubs where bingo is prominently featured.
However, rising revenues do not necessarily correlate with increased gambling harm, nor does a high percentage of machine revenue automatically indicate inadequate bingo offerings at traditional clubs. A small number of higher-stakes products can generate significantly more gross gambling yield than a larger number of bingo seats would.
The UK Gambling Commission's data shows an urgent need to address this issue. The Bingo Association's figures indicate a decline in registered traditional clubs, falling from 335 in December 2018 to 248 by August 2024. Conversely, as of March this year, the total number of licensed bingo premises increased to 714, up from 688 the previous year, with growth chiefly attributed to smaller high-street locations offsetting the loss of traditional venues.
The revenue composition has also transformed, with machines accounting for 44% of gross gambling yield in licensed bingo as of March 2014. By March 2024, this share had surged to 63%, now at 65.6% in 2025-26.
This discourse extends beyond mere machine revenue; it encompasses a shifting framework where venues originally established for traditional bingo are now dominated by gaming machines from the onset.
To address this, the government’s consultation proposed defining a specific bingo area in each licensed venue, potentially requiring 30%, 40%, or 50% of the premises to be dedicated to bingo, with machines excluded from that space. Tablets, even if offering gaming content, would need to offer bingo.
Additionally, a minimum number of distinct bingo positions was discussed, with proposals suggesting 30 or 40 seats.
For businesses looking to maintain a primarily machine-focused operation, the consultation introduced another option: changing to an AGC license, which would limit bingo offerings and potentially restrict alcohol sales, alongside incurring licensing fees.
The regulatory challenge lies in ensuring authentic hybrid venues are not shut down while preventing minimal bingo provisions from supporting what would otherwise be classified as an AGC.
A minimum requirement for seating could serve as a straightforward measure, though it needs to be low enough to accommodate smaller venues. A guideline tied to the size of the bingo area might help maintain bingo's prominence, yet it could lead to operators merely marking areas to meet requirements.
The consultation concluded in January, but changes in government leadership have left the sector anticipating a formal response.
Current scenarios do not imply that machine-led bingo venues are operating illegally. The core issue remains that existing regulations struggle to articulate the minimum bingo requirements for a venue to qualify as a bona fide bingo hall. One licensing category currently encompasses diverse venues, from large clubs with extensive bingo offerings to small establishments deriving the bulk of their revenue from machines. The government recognizes the challenge of redefining these boundaries without harming the very bingo venues the licensing was intended to protect.
