The UK gambling sector has witnessed a significant uptick in revenue from gaming machines located in licensed bingo establishments, raising concerns among critics who liken the situation to a 'trojan horse' for gambling harm. Recent figures from the Gambling Commission indicate that, for the year ending March 2026, gaming machines yielded £461.7 million for bingo operators, compared to £242.1 million generated by traditional bingo games. This means machines accounted for nearly two-thirds of the sector's total gross gambling yield (GGY) of £703.8 million.
The trend underscores a growing reliance on machines in bingo venues. Since 2019-20, GGY from machines has surged from around £293 million to £462 million by 2025-26, marking a 57% increase. Notably, revenue from Category B machines, which involve higher stakes, rose significantly from approximately £197 million to £361 million in the same timeframe. Consequently, Category B machines constituted about 78% of bingo machine GGY in the latest financial year, up from approximately 67% in 2019-20.
These numbers might initially suggest that machines have become a central feature of bingo clubs, which have leveraged them to offset costs related to staffing and energy, particularly as attendance at traditional bingo venues declines.
However, these aggregate statistics obscure a more profound shift within the sector. An increasing number of bingo-licensed premises now resemble adult gaming centres (AGCs) more than traditional bingo halls.
In a consultation in October 2025, the government acknowledged this issue, recognizing a "growing number" of licensed bingo venues focused primarily on gaming machines rather than traditional bingo, making it hard to distinguish them from AGCs. Some of these venues have machines dominating their floor space, presenting them as the key attraction for patrons.
Analysis of data from the Gambling Commission indicates that among operators classified as high-street bingo venues, less than 1% of GGY derived from bingo games, with machines accounting for the remaining 99%. In contrast, traditional bingo clubs saw bingo contribute 51% to their GGY, while holiday park operators achieved 55%.
These discrepancies illustrate that the term "bingo premises" now encompasses at least two distinct types of operations. One type is the traditional club, where bingo games are the main draw, supported by machine revenue. The other is smaller high-street venues where machines are the primary offering, with bingo playing a secondary role.
Investigating licensee data from Merkur Slots, it was noted that of the 340 locations, 227 were categorized as bingo venues while only 106 were recognized as AGCs. A cursory look at these "bingo" venues reveals they generally operate and look like AGCs, even if they include signage about bingo being offered.
The emergence of hybrid venues adds further complexity. Smaller establishments may successfully integrate bingo offerings with machines, attracting diverse audiences without replicating the classic club model. This raises questions for regulators trying to distinguish between legitimate innovation and arcade-like operations masquerading under a bingo license.
Under the Gambling Commission's social responsibility code provision 9.1.2, machines may be available in licensed bingo venues only if there are "substantive facilities" for non-remote bingo. However, what constitutes "substantive" is not clearly defined. The Gambling Act has not set specific requirements regarding floor space allocation, the number of available bingo seats, or the revenue proportions between bingo and machines.
The Gambling Commission has intentionally avoided a universal numerical definition to maintain flexibility, catering to traditional clubs while also accommodating electronic bingo and emerging formats. This flexibility, however, has permitted venues where bingo is technically present but not a significant revenue generator.
The introduction of electronic bingo terminals complicates the scenario even further, as a single device can offer both bingo and machine games, although only one type can be played at a time. Multiple tablets might support bingo's availability without it being the primary activity.
The divergence in licensing carries important implications. Both bingo premises and AGCs can typically offer Category B3 and B4 machines up to 20% of their total machine count. However, licensed bingo venues can provide forms of bingo that AGCs cannot, as AGCs are limited to certain types of gaming. Licensed bingo venues may also seek permission to serve alcohol, which is restricted in AGCs.
The different regulatory identities impact customer experience, venue presentation, and how local authorities assess gambling risks in the area. For example, a premises primarily focused on machines operating under a bingo license may face a different regulatory status compared to an AGC offering similar products.
The government has identified that playing machines correlates with increased problem gambling, indicating that venues primarily featuring machines have a distinct risk profile compared to those that center on bingo.
Evidence shows that the number of traditional bingo clubs has significantly diminished, decreasing from 335 registered venues in December 2018 to 248 by August 2024. Meanwhile, the total number of bingo premises rose from 688 to 714 in the same period, countering traditional venue losses mainly due to the expansion of smaller high-street locations.
The balance between machine revenue and traditional bingo has also shifted dramatically; machines constituted 44% of GGY in March 2014, but that figure climbed to 65.6% in 2025-26.
This issue is not merely about the increasing prominence of machines within existing bingo clubs. It also pertains to the rise of venue formats designed primarily around machines from their inception.
The government’s consultation has introduced the concept of establishing designated bingo areas within licensed venues, suggesting thresholds of 30%, 40%, or even 50% of the premises to be devoted to continuous bingo. The plan includes banning certain gaming machines in those designated zones while ensuring that tablets available in those areas must offer bingo.
The consultation also explored imposing minimum requirements for the number of distinct bingo positions, ranging from 30 to 40, or linking the number to the size of the bingo area.
For operators who wish to retain predominantly machine-focused offerings, the consultation may allow for conversion to AGC licenses; however, this transition would result in the loss of most bingo offerings as well as the ability to serve alcohol, along with increased licensing expenses.
Addressing this issue is complex. While setting minimum seating requirements presents a straightforward test, those numbers must be low enough to consider legitimate smaller venues. An alternative approach might involve regulations tied to the spatial layout of bingo to ensure the game’s presence is clearly visible, although this could unintentionally lead operators to create nominal spaces that only meet minimal regulations.
Ultimately, an effective regulatory strategy may need both a defined bingo area and a substantial number of accessible positions for gameplay.
The response to the consultation, which concluded in January, remains pending due to changes within the government.
Laws do not mandate that machine-focused bingo venues operate illegally. However, existing regulations struggle to clarify how much bingo must be provided before a venue can genuinely be classified as a bingo establishment. This results in a single licensing framework encompassing everything from clubs with hundreds of bingo positions to high-street operations where almost all revenue comes from gaming machines. The government acknowledges the need to clarify the distinction between these venues and AGCs, raising the crucial question of how to redefine boundaries without adversely affecting traditional bingo establishments.
