Poland’s gambling market is still running under one of Europe’s heaviest tax regimes

Poland has spent nearly two decades trying to grow a regulated gambling market under a tax structure that is unusually heavy by European standards. For licensed operators and their payment providers, the problem is straightforward: the legal market has promise, but the combination of tax pressure and a restrictive licensing model keeps the economics tight and the illegal offer attractive.

1. Poland’s main gambling law came into force in 2009, after the “Blackjack-gate” political scandal. The episode led to the resignation of several officials in Donald Tusk’s government after recordings surfaced showing improper agreements with industry representatives aimed at blocking tax increases on gambling.
2. That 2009 Gambling Act introduced a 12% tax on the total volume of sports bets for private operators, plus a 50% tax on gross gambling revenue (GGR) for casinos. There is also a 10% tax on player winnings, which operators collect directly.
3. Physical casinos operate under license, but since the 2017 reform the state monopoly Totalizator Sportowy has kept exclusive control over online casinos and slot machines located outside physical casinos. Online sports betting, by contrast, is open to private operators through a licensing system.
4. The 2017 reform also gave authorities a mechanism to require payment providers to block transactions to illegal gambling domains. In practice, the industry still debates how effective that tool really is.
5. On the numbers that matter: Poland is described as having the highest sports betting tax in Europe, at a level comparable to France on an equivalent GGR basis. Total gross market revenue is projected at close to USD 4.970 billion for 2026, with approximately USD 1.847 billion coming from sports betting. Online sports betting channelization is estimated at between 78 and 88%.

For high-risk PSPs, the useful detail is not just that Poland taxes heavily; it is that the state has already paired that tax model with payment-blocking powers. That makes the country a case study in how fiscal policy, licensing scope, and payment enforcement can be used together to shape where legal volume actually lands.