Flutter Entertainment’s planned review of Paddy Power’s high-street estate has become a dispute over cause and consequence: the industry points to taxes and worsening retail economics, while the government argues gambling companies should still contribute to public services.

Up to 100 shops could close across the UK and Ireland, threatening roughly 400 jobs at a time when betting firms are already shrinking their physical footprints. The prospective closures bring together concerns about workers and town centres with a wider argument over whether gambling-duty changes are protecting public finances or accelerating a shift away from regulated high-street businesses.

Paddy Power operates 506 shops across the two countries and employs more than 2,300 people; the review could therefore affect close to a fifth of its retail estate.¹ Flutter said the shops remained important to its business and communities, but described the decision to review them as “extremely difficult.”²

The company’s explanation reaches beyond tax. It cited rising costs, intense competition, economic uncertainty and customers’ continuing move online, while saying higher gambling taxes announced in the previous UK Budget would have a “material impact.” It said affected staff would be offered redeployment where possible.²

Right-leaning critics have put greater emphasis on Labour’s tax policy. Shadow sports minister Louie French said the changes would damage jobs, consumers and sport, and warned that a decline in regulated operators could benefit the illegal online market.³ Industry body chief executive Gráinne Hurst similarly said the sector had warned that higher taxes would mean fewer shops, jobs and investment.

Ministers reject the suggestion that the policy is simply punitive. A government spokesperson said the sector benefits from a stable economy and “must contribute to public services,” adding that duty reforms are expected to raise about £1 billion annually, including for cost-of-living support.³ The contrast is clear: Flutter and its supporters see a cumulative squeeze on viable shops; the government sees a revenue measure alongside stronger enforcement against illegal gambling.