UK pubs, and specifically Tim Martin’s popular pub chain JD Wetherspoon, have surprisingly been pulled into the growing debate around gaming machines fuelled by Andy Burnham’s new economic vision for the country. 

The issue stumbled its way into the spotlight after Wetherspoons – a British high street staple – hit out at the Financial Times (FT) over how much money its gaming machines generate, as the government signals a tougher approach to gambling taxation.

It is worth noting that, throughout the FT article, references are made to the research lacking detail, with author Bryce Elder stating that “the estimates have very, very wide margins for error” and “we’ve put very little work into finding an answer”.

This still managed to rattle the cages of Wetherspoons’ C-suite, though. 

Responding to the article, a notice published to the London Stock Exchange (LSE) by Wetherspoons said the suggestion that the company “might be making more from gambling than food” was “wildly out of kilter” with actual accounts.

It comes as new Prime Minister Burnham pledged his support towards pubs, clubs and live music venues in the UK, cutting business rates by 20%, with the policy expected to be funded in part through higher rates on businesses deemed to have a greater “negative impact” on communities. 

Burnham has referenced both vape shops and adult gaming centres (AGCs) in this category.

Burnham’s priorities clash

But with the FT’s suggestions regarding gaming machines generating vital revenue for Wetherspoons, it begs the question as to whether there may be a clash between Burnham’s aims to reduce gambling-related harm while supporting an industry which – however fleetingly – generates revenues from gambling itself. 

The relieving news for Burnham is that gambling machines accounted for just 3.4% of Wetherspoons’ sales in 2025 and 3.6% of gross profit before the allocation of operating costs.

By comparison, the group’s core businesses – food, drinks and hotel rooms – generated the remaining 96.6% of sales and 96.4% of gross profit.

Wetherspoons argued that food sales were 11 times higher than machine revenue, while food gross profit was 10.2 times greater, rejecting the FT’s methodology.

“You don’t need to be J.K. Galbraith, Milton Friedman, or even Rachel Reeves, to regard this as voodoo economics,” the statement read.

“Without all the other costs of the business, and without the customers they attract, there could be no fruit machine income, so, logically, the machines have to bear their share of overheads.

“Mr Elder certainly misled himself by calling Wetherspoon’s fruit machines ‘casino-style’.

“In fact, as licensing lawyers will attest, the type of machines allowed in pubs are quite different to casinos, bingo halls, members’ or miners’ clubs.

“Pub stakes are much lower, as indeed are the prizes which can be won by customers.”

The statement also rejected the suggestion that gaming machines represent a major growth driver for the business, pointing out that machine revenue has steadily declined as a proportion of overall sales over the past three decades.

The FT, however, argued that despite contributing only a small portion of group revenue, gaming machines could account for a disproportionately large share of Wetherspoon’s profits because of their relatively high margins.

Citing investor presentations from 2018, the newspaper said the machines were expected to contribute around a quarter of group profits and estimated that gaming machine profits could represent around 27% of operating profit in the 2026 financial year, compared with around 30% from food.

Wetherspoons again strongly rejected that research method, citing it as an “egregious error” and arguing the analysis failed to allocate overhead costs fairly across the wider business.

To reiterate, the FT article consistently noted its lack of research. Elder even wrote that “there’s a non-zero chance of this post provoking a rebuttal in the next issue of Wetherspoon News”.

Nonetheless, Wetherspoons continued by stating that gaming machine income represented around 7% of sales when the company listed on the LSE in 1992, falling to around 6% by 2000 and declining further to 3.4% today, despite occasional years of growth.

This is broadly in line with retail betting trends seen in the UK in recent times, with gross gaming yield (GGY) steadily declining over the past three years.

Rate cuts and raises still unclear

While the government’s immediate focus has been on AGCs rather than pubs, the proposals prompt questions over whether a broader gambling clampdown could eventually extend to other sectors that operate gaming machines.

Traditional bookies fall into this category of sectors, though the new PM is yet to mention these in the group of businesses contributing to the said negative societal impact. Pubs with gaming machines could also be put into the same category.

Most pub gaming machines are Category C machines, which carry a maximum £2 stake and £100 prize, and are subject to a 20% rate of Machine Games Duty.

Although there has been no indication that ministers intend to target pub machines specifically, any future increase in gambling taxation or wider regulatory reforms could leave the government balancing two competing objectives.

Wetherspoons highlighted the tax contribution generated by its machines – the business paid £18.2m in Machine Games Duty during its most recent financial year.

The statement continued: “His hypothesis, that there is a possibility of ‘the profits (machines) generate being relegated to zero’, would come at a high cost to the Treasury, with little evidence of public benefit.”

Martin, who is the Chair of Wetherspoons, added: “I’ve been on the other side of the fence from the Financial Times on the two main financial debates of the last 30 years – whether the UK should join the euro and whether the UK should remain in the EU.

“At the risk of immodesty, I’m pleased to say that this fruit machine debate makes it three-nil to Timbo.”

Wetherspoons not alone

However, while readers may think this disagreement is a little petty or futile, it may well extend beyond a debate over Wetherspoons’ accounts and a chance for Martin to point score over the FT. 

While the business mogul and his pub chain insist gaming machines make only a modest contribution to its overall business, the FT argued they could represent a far more significant share of profits because of the machines’  higher margins. 

Though Wetherspoons is fairly unique in revealing how much its gaming machines generate, it can likely be assumed that other UK pub chains – Greene King and JW Lees to name a couple – as well as independent pubs are having similar financial success from the same products, or at the very least, products within the same ballpark. 

It is clearly a case of ‘time will tell’, but as the government pursues a tougher stance on parts of the gambling sector, the question of whether any business profiting from gambling-related products could be impacted has to be one that is brought up.