National Online Gambling Tax: What the MTBPS Says and What South African Players Should Know

What Treasury said about the online gambling tax on 21 October

The South African online gambling tax is still a proposal, and it will stay one until at least February 2027. On Wednesday 21 October 2026, Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana delivered the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement in Parliament, and a short passage in it dealt with gambling. According to the published speech on the government website, it said that Treasury published a discussion paper last year proposing a National Online Gambling Tax, and that the submissions received generally recognised the need to address the growth of online gambling and its associated harm.

The speech then listed what is still being worked on: consultations are ongoing on the proposed tax design, its linkages to the existing regulatory framework, and the implications for provinces and the currently regulated market. It ended with the line that matters most for a calendar: an announcement of the final design will be made in the February 2027 Budget.

eNCA reported the same passage that evening, and BusinessTech noted that apart from the gambling work the speech gave no sign of new general tax measures, because the revenue outlook for 2026/27 had improved. Treasury said gross tax revenue for the year had been revised upwards by R17.1 billion compared with the February estimate. Higher collections of corporate tax, dividends tax and VAT drove most of that, with higher commodity prices also playing a part, according to those reports.

The speech did not give a start date for the tax, and it did not repeat a rate. The 20% figure comes from the earlier discussion paper, not from this statement. We think that distinction is easy to miss in the headlines, so it is worth stating plainly: nobody has decided that the rate will be 20%, or that it will apply to any particular kind of operator, or when. The minister said the design is still being consulted on.

This post is a status check with some analysis. We label our own reading as such. If you want the longer background on the proposal and the separate advertising rules, our earlier post on the tax and advertising limits covers it, and we do not repeat all of it here.

What the original discussion paper actually proposed

To understand what is still open, it helps to go back to the source. National Treasury's discussion paper on a national gambling tax is a 24 page document, and its core proposal is simple to state. It suggests a national tax of 20% on gross gambling revenue from online gambling, added on top of the taxes that provinces already charge. Gross gambling revenue, often shortened to GGR, is what a gambling business keeps after paying out winnings to players. It is not the same as turnover, which is the total amount wagered.

Three details in the paper stand out. First, the base includes interactive gambling even though the paper describes it as remaining unlawful in South Africa. That is unusual: a government proposing to tax an activity that its own gambling law does not allow. Second, the paper says the main objective is not to raise money but to discourage problem gambling and its ill effects, and to reduce the spread of online gambling. Third, it estimates that the tax would bring in more than R10 billion in additional revenue for national government at current levels.

The paper also compares South Africa with other countries. It says 11 other jurisdictions charge 20% on gross gambling revenue, and a further 16 charge a higher rate. On existing provincial taxes, the paper gives averages: casinos are generally taxed at between 10% and 15% of gross gambling revenue, and bookmakers at between 6% and 7% of winning bets or net gaming revenue.

A figure of 6% to 9% for provincial gambling taxes appears in the Reuters report from March 2026, which said Treasury expected a combined burden of up to 29% once the national tax was added. Different documents and outlets describe the provincial rate differently because provinces set their own rates and the rate depends on the type of operator. We use the ranges as each source gives them and do not blend them into a single number.

None of this has changed since the paper came out. The minister's statement confirms the proposal is alive, not that it has been adopted in the form the paper described.

Why the design is still being argued over

The objections that have been made in public fall into a few groups, and the minister's wording suggests Treasury is listening to at least some of them.

The first is about money. Reuters reported that South African Bookmakers' Association chief executive Sean Coleman put the total burden at 38.5% of profits once provincial taxes, VAT and the new national levy are combined. The association argued in its submission to Treasury that cracking down on illegal sites would work better than raising taxes on registered companies, which it said would make winnings less attractive to players. Betway said it would speak through the association. We cannot check the 38.5% figure against Treasury's own 26% to 29% range, because the two use different assumptions. Both are claims from interested parties, and we present them that way.

The second is about constitutional powers. A Moneyweb report from January 2026 quoted Ayanda Zulu of the Free Market Foundation arguing that a national tax on gambling ignores the provincial role set out in the National Gambling Act. The same piece called the proposal a revenue grab, which is the foundation's own phrase. The minister's reference to implications for provinces in the October speech reads to us as an acknowledgement that this question is live, though the speech does not say how Treasury intends to answer it.

The third objection is the oddest, and it matters most to people who play at offshore casinos. The Moneyweb piece, again quoting the foundation's commentator, pointed out that most forms of interactive gambling are treated as illegal in South Africa, so a tax that explicitly covers them looks like an inversion of ordinary legal logic. In plain terms: how can the state tax something it has not licensed? The paper's own answer is that the tax is meant to discourage the activity and to reach revenue that is currently untaxed. Whether that holds up legally is a question for lawyers and, eventually, perhaps for a court.

A fourth group of concerns was reported by iGaming AFRIKA. It said that SAROGA, the South African Responsible Online Gambling Association, and Sun International were among the industry voices who feared a 20% levy could disadvantage licensed operators and push players towards unregulated offshore platforms. The same report also noted that the minister's October statement did not say when the tax would take effect.

The minister's list of what remains under consultation maps onto these groups quite closely: tax design, the link to the regulatory framework, provinces, and the regulated market. Our reading is that Treasury has not abandoned the idea, but has accepted that the first draft left real questions open.

The numbers behind the push for a tax

Treasury's case rests on how fast online gambling has grown, and the available figures are large. According to the Reuters report, South Africans wagered a record R1.5 trillion in the 2024/25 financial year. The same report said the National Gambling Board estimates that two thirds of adults gamble online, up from 30% in 2017. BusinessTech put gross gambling revenue at R26.3 billion in 2015 and R74.5 billion by 2024.

Turnover and revenue are different measures, and the gap between them is easy to misread. Turnover counts every rand that is bet, including winnings that are bet again. A player who deposits R500 and bets it ten times at R50 has contributed R500 of turnover from a single deposit. Gross gambling revenue only counts what the operator keeps. So a headline like R1.5 trillion wagered does not mean South Africans lost R1.5 trillion. It means that is the total value of bets placed.

The harm side of the argument is the other half of Treasury's case. Reuters reported that the South African Responsible Gambling Foundation treated more than 4,600 people for addiction in the previous year, up from 2,600 in 2024. Its executive director, Sibongile Simelane-Quntana, said calls to a national helpline had surged by more than two thirds over the year. Our own earlier news item on the Solidarity report on online gambling growth covers another set of figures on the same trend.

These numbers explain why the idea has political support even among people who dislike the specific design. A rate of 20% will not cure addiction by itself, and the paper does not claim it will. What the figures show is why Treasury is unlikely to drop the idea entirely. If you or someone close to you is struggling, the responsible gambling page lists where to get help.

Two ways the final design could go

This section is our analysis, not reporting. Nobody outside Treasury knows what the February 2027 announcement will say, and we are not predicting it. We are laying out the two broad shapes that the minister's wording leaves open, so that readers can recognise them when the Budget arrives.

The first shape is a tax aimed at the licensed, regulated market only. The minister's mention of linkages to the existing regulatory framework and the currently regulated market fits this. Licensed bookmakers already report revenue to provincial boards, so a national levy on their gross gambling revenue would be administratively easy. The difficulty is the one the industry has raised: it would raise costs for the operators that already comply and could widen the price gap with offshore competitors.

The second shape is a tax that tries to reach offshore operators too, which is what the discussion paper's wording about interactive gambling suggests. That is much harder to do. A foreign operator without a South African licence has no obvious duty to register with the South African Revenue Service, and enforcement would depend on mechanisms such as payment controls or website blocking. We looked at the blocking side in our post on the NGB plan to block illegal gambling websites. None of those mechanisms is in place today in a way that would make a tax on offshore casinos collectable, as far as we can tell from the sources we read.

There is also a middle path, in which Treasury announces a rate and a framework in February but leaves the detailed legislation for later. Reuters reported in March that Treasury said a draft bill would go to lawmakers during 2026. We have not found a published draft in our checks this week, and the minister's October wording speaks of an announcement of final design rather than a bill. That tells us the legislative stage is still ahead, which in turn means an effective date well after February 2027 is more likely than not. That is our inference, and we flag it as one.

Whatever shape emerges, a Budget announcement is not law. Tax changes normally need legislation, and that means a process with public input and a parliamentary timetable.

What changes for South African players now

For a player today, the practical answer is that nothing changes because of the 21 October statement. No tax has been imposed on your deposits, winnings or withdrawals. A tax on gross gambling revenue is a tax on the operator's income, not a charge added to a player's transaction, so even if it arrives it would not appear as a line on your bank statement. What it could do is affect the prices operators charge, the promotions they can afford and whether some of them choose to stay in the market. All of that is speculation until the design is published.

It is also worth being clear about the legal position, because the tax debate tends to blur it. South Africa has licensed operators for betting and for land-based casinos through provincial boards, but, as far as we are aware, no operator holds a licence for remote casino games under the National Gambling Act. Offshore casinos serve South African players directly. "Accepts South African players" is not the same as "licensed in South Africa", and a possible tax on offshore revenue would not turn one into the other. Our South Africa legal overview explains this in more detail.

The advice we would give does not depend on the tax outcome. Set a deposit limit you can afford to lose before you start, and treat every deposit as entertainment spending. Keep your records of deposits and withdrawals, because they are useful if you ever need to dispute a payment. Our guide to FICA verification at online casinos explains why identity checks happen, and our page on payment methods covers the deposit options South African players commonly use.

If a site or a social media account offers to help you "avoid the new tax", be wary. Nothing has been imposed, and that kind of pitch is more likely to be a scam than a service.

What to watch before February 2027

The date in the diary is the February 2027 Budget, but there are signals worth watching before it.

First, any Treasury or SARS notice that sets out draft legislation. Reuters reported that Treasury expected to table a draft bill, and a published draft would be the first real sign of the intended rate, the base and who must register.

Second, statements from provincial gambling boards and the provinces' finance departments. The minister said consultations include the implications for provinces. Provinces collect gambling taxes today, and a national levy on the same base raises obvious questions about revenue sharing. Any joint position would show how the constitutional objection is being handled.

Third, the industry's own moves. The South African Bookmakers' Association has said it would rather see action on illegal operators than higher taxes. A shift in that argument, for example towards a lower rate or a rate tied to responsible gambling spending, would be a sign of where negotiation is heading.

Fourth, the wider African picture. Reuters said Malawi and Zimbabwe raised gambling taxes this year and Senegal announced additional gambling taxation in its recovery plan the year before. South Africa is the largest market, so decisions there are likely to be watched in the region, but each country's law differs and we would not read one as a template for another.

We will update this post only if there is a real change, for example a published draft, a confirmed rate or a legal challenge. Until then, the safest summary is the one the minister gave: consultations are ongoing, and the final design comes in February 2027. For the background on how this fits with the rest of the policy picture, see our earlier explainer on the tax and advertising limits.

Frequently Asked Questions