Poland currently applies one of the most restrictive and costly tax models for players and operators alike. Compared to more liberal systems, such as those in Sweden or the United Kingdom, the Polish framework raises serious questions about competitiveness, market efficiency and long-term sustainability.
Poland’s Current Tax System
In Poland, the key element of betting taxation is a 12% turnover tax on each stake. This means that the tax is deducted at the moment the bet is placed, regardless of whether the player wins or loses. As a result, only 88% of the original stake is actually used in the bet, which directly reduces potential returns and lowers the effective odds. Additionally, winnings above a certain threshold are subject to an extra tax, currently set at 10%, with proposals to increase it to 15% in the coming years.
Sports betting in Poland has become a very popular form of online entertainment, attracting millions of active users each year. The dynamic growth of digital platforms, widespread access to mobile applications and strong interest in football, basketball, tennis and esports have significantly increased market participation. According to industry estimates, the Polish betting market is now one of the largest in Central and Eastern Europe, with both domestic and international operators competing for market share. This popularity makes the structure of betting taxation particularly important, as fiscal policy directly affects not only player behavior but also the overall development and legitimacy of the sector.
Comparison with Other European Countries
This dual taxation model – taxing both the stake and the winnings – makes Poland an outlier in Europe. In practice, players are taxed before they even know the outcome of the bet, and then potentially taxed again on their profit. From an economic perspective, this creates a system where the expected value of betting is structurally lower than in most other regulated markets.
By contrast, in countries such as Sweden, Denmark, or the UK, players do not pay any tax on their winnings at all, provided they use licensed operators. Instead, taxation is imposed on betting companies, usually in the form of a GGR tax (Gross Gaming Revenue), which is calculated as the difference between stakes collected and winnings paid out. In Sweden, this tax is around 22% of GGR, while in the UK it stands at 21%.
This approach offers several advantages. First, it is more transparent for players, who always receive their full winnings. Second, it aligns taxation with actual profitability, meaning operators pay taxes only on real revenue, not on total turnover. Third, it supports a more competitive and attractive legal market, reducing the incentive to use offshore or illegal platforms.
Possible Reforms for Poland
If Poland wanted to move closer to European standards, the most effective reform would be abolishing the turnover tax and replacing it with a GGR-based model. This would instantly improve odds, increase player activity, and make the legal market more competitive. Instead of taxing every bet, the state would tax real profits generated by operators.
Another important step would be removing or significantly increasing the threshold for taxing winnings, or eliminating this tax entirely. In most European countries, personal winnings from gambling are treated as tax-free income, recognizing that players already bear risk and that gambling is a form of entertainment rather than investment.
From a fiscal perspective, such reforms do not necessarily mean lower budget revenues. In fact, experience from other markets shows that a more attractive tax system often leads to higher overall activity, better channelization into the legal market, and ultimately higher total tax income due to a broader tax base.
In conclusion, Poland’s current betting tax system is economically inefficient and internationally uncompetitive. A shift towards a GGR-based model, combined with tax-free winnings for players, would align Poland with European best practices. Such a reform could strengthen the legal market, increase consumer protection, and create a more sustainable and balanced regulatory environment for both players and operators.
