Europe is arguing over inequality in the gambling sector

The European gambling market is turning into an arena of conflict due to fundamental inequality in regulation. Governments protect state lotteries and horse race betting as “national cultural heritage,” granting them preferential tax regimes and exemptions from restrictions. Private businesses, by contrast, face high taxes, strict regulation, and discriminatory rules. In Sweden and the United Kingdom, racetrack associations are demanding even greater tax pressure on online casinos, arguing this based on the historically privileged status of horse racing. Private operators warn of the opposite effect: selective regulation weakens the legal sector, pushing players toward illegal platforms.

France demonstrates a monopolistic scenario. The company FDJ United, which grew out of the state lottery, has absorbed other companies, prompting accusations of creating artificial hegemony. Land-based casinos block the legalization of the online segment, citing risks of job and revenue losses. Belgium has taken a judicial route: the Constitutional Court ruled that the exemption granted to the National Lottery is discriminatory. Its mobile apps, featuring jackpots, bonuses, and gamification, are effectively indistinguishable from private casinos. By the end of 2026, parliament is required to resolve this contradiction.

The traditional division into “beneficial” (lotteries, horse racing) and “new” (casinos) is no longer relevant. The technological convergence of products exposes the absurdity of this distinction: identical risks for players, but different rules for businesses. Inequality fuels the shadow market: high taxes drive players out of the legal space, state monopolies hinder innovation, and lawsuits continue to multiply.

Ukraine should avoid this trap. The recent licensing of lotteries has already generated its first 72 million UAH, and the market plans to develop through a unified SOMS database. European experience shows that artificial privileges for certain segments lead to conflict rather than stability. A single tax logic, unified compliance standards, and digital monitoring can ensure equal conditions without “historical” exceptions. Businesses will gain room to scale, the state will maintain control over turnover, and players will receive guarantees of protection within a single legal framework. The unification of products requires the unification of rules: the system should be built so that competition is determined by quality, not privileges.