The UK’s gambling landscape has recently highlighted a significant increase in gaming machine revenue from licensed bingo establishments, prompting concerns among critics. One gambling harm advocate has referred to bingo as a "trojan horse" for gaming machine activities.
Recent data from the Gambling Commission indicates that for the year ending March 2026, gaming machines earned £461.7 million in gross gambling yield (GGY) for bingo operators, starkly contrasting with the £242.1 million generated by bingo games. This meant that gaming machines accounted for nearly two-thirds of the total GGY for the sector, which stood at £703.8 million.
This trend has been escalating, with GGY from bingo premises’ machines rising from about £293 million in 2019-20 to £462 million in 2025-26—a 57% increase. Specifically, revenue from Category B machines, known for their higher stakes, surged from approximately £197 million to £361 million over the same timeframe. Consequently, Category B machines constituted approximately 78% of bingo machine GGY in the most recent financial year, up from around 67% in 2019-20.
Although these numbers may suggest that gaming machines have become increasingly crucial for traditional bingo venues, they mask a deeper transformation within the sector. An increasing number of locations hold bingo licenses while essentially operating as adult gaming centers (AGCs).
In its October 2025 consultation on bingo licensing, the government acknowledged this issue, noting a "growing number" of licensed bingo venues that predominantly feature gaming machines and bear resemblance to AGCs. Some venues had machines occupying most of their floor space, presenting them as the defining aspect of the customer experience.
Analysis from the Gambling Commission reveals that among operators categorized by the Bingo Association as primarily high-street bingo establishments, less than 1% of GGY came from bingo games—99% originated from gaming machines. In comparison, bingo games accounted for 51% of GGY among traditional bingo club operators and 55% for those focused on holiday parks.
These figures illustrate the emergence of two distinct business models under the umbrella of "bingo premises." One model is the classic destination club, offering scheduled bingo games to large crowds, while the other is a smaller high-street venue where machines dominate, relegating bingo to a marginal role.
An investigation by iGB into the licensee details for Merkur Slots, accessible on the UK Gambling Commission’s website, found that of its 340 venues, 227 were classified as bingo locations and only 106 as AGCs. Visual inspections via Google street view reveal that these "bingo" venues closely resemble AGCs, despite signage indicating that bingo is available.
To complicate the landscape further, there’s an emerging hybrid model that combines both bingo and gaming machine offerings, catering to diverse audiences while avoiding the traditional club format.
This regulatory challenge stems from defining what constitutes "substantive facilities" for bingo as mandated by Gambling Commission code provision 9.1.2. Customers must be able to easily recognize a venue as licensed for bingo, but the term "substantive" remains undefined.
The Gambling Act lacks specific guidance on how much space should be allocated to bingo, the number of customers required to participate, or what portion of revenue must be generated from bingo games. Consequently, there’s no set minimum for bingo seating.
The Commission previously avoided establishing a rigid numerical definition to allow for flexibility across various bingo formats, including traditional clubs, holiday parks, and electronic bingo. However, this has also created openings for venues where bingo is available but not significantly impactful.
The existence of electronic bingo terminals adds to this complexity, as they can host both bingo and gaming machine content, though only one can be engaged at any given time. Therefore, a setup with multiple tablets can display bingo options while facilitating gaming machine activity.
Despite existing regulations, the boundaries have become murky. Licensed bingo operators can offer unique bingo formats not available at AGCs, where bingo is strictly regulated to qualifying prize gaming. Moreover, bingo premises may obtain alcohol licenses, a privilege not extended to AGCs during gambling.
The distinction in regulatory frameworks affects customer experiences and the multi-operator self-exclusion schemes in place. Machine-led bingo venues may therefore experience a different level of scrutiny compared to AGCs offering similar products.
The government’s consultation noted survey findings linking machine play with higher problem gambling rates than traditional bingo. It indicated that venues prioritizing machines present a different risk profile than those where bingo features prominently, regardless of their official classification.
However, a rise in revenue does not inherently indicate increased harm, nor does a high percentage of machine revenue imply that a traditional club is offering insufficient bingo opportunities. A limited number of high-stakes products can yield significantly more GGY than a larger number of bingo seats. Hence, using revenue as a metric could misrepresent legitimate clubs that maintain a substantial bingo presence despite generating higher machine revenues.
The Gambling Commission’s latest data reflects the urgency of the situation. According to information from the Bingo Association cited by the government, the number of registered traditional clubs dropped from 335 in December 2018 to 248 by August 2024. In the same period, the total number of bingo premises increased from 688 the previous year to 714, fueled primarily by growth in smaller high-street venues.
Contrarily, the revenue distribution has shifted along with changes in venue formats. Machines contributed to 44% of GGY within the licensed bingo sector in March 2014, which has now increased to 63% by March 2024. The latest figures show this figure at 65.6% for 2025-26.
The ongoing discussion centers not solely on the growing machine segment within traditional bingo clubs but also on the rise of venues where machines are the principal source of income since inception.
Among the proposals discussed in the government’s consultation was the introduction of a clearly defined bingo area within every licensed location. Suggested requirements included reserving 30%, 40%, or 50% of the premises exclusively for bingo activities, prohibiting in-fill gaming machines from this space and obligating tablets to offer bingo in any capacity.
The government also considered establishing a minimum number of distinct bingo positions, exploring 30 or 40 seats, with a potential formula linking this number to the size of the designated bingo area.
Alternatively, operators leaning towards predominantly machine-led venues could explore transforming their operations to AGC licenses, relinquishing the ability to provide many bingo forms and potentially alcohol service.
A minimum seating requirement could serve as a simple assessment tool, but it would need to be low enough to allow for credible small venues. Implementing a floor-space regulation might better ensure bingo’s prominence, although it risks incentivizing operators to establish nominal spaces merely to fulfill percentage obligations.
Effective regulation may ultimately necessitate a dual approach: delineating a visible bingo area while ensuring a meaningful number of available positions are offered for play. The consultation closed in January, but cabinet changes have left the sector awaiting the government’s response.
It is essential to clarify that machine-focused bingo venues are not automatically operating outside the law. The issue lies within the current legislative framework’s inability to define the necessary level of bingo provision for a venue to legitimately claim that designation.
With a single license category encompassing everything from large bingo clubs to small establishments that generate 99% of their revenue from machines, the government recognizes that the line distinguishing these venues from AGCs has become blurred. The challenge remains to redefine that boundary while protecting the bingo venues for which the license was originally intended.
