SIMON THOMAS
This is what the British economist, Sir Alan Budd described as the ‘central dilemma’ for gambling policy.
In recent years, there has been a drift away from this consensus towards the idea that harm prevention is the only thing that matters – and the wishes of adults who enjoy having a bet should therefore be entirely disregarded. While the concerns that underpin this philosophy are understandable, they are also profoundly illiberal as well as economically disastrous. As writers from Chandler to Hayek have observed, we can use harm prevention to justify the banning of most things in life.
Nonetheless, the central point remains: for most consumers, gambling is fun.
If regulators forget this, the rules by which the licensed market is governed will over time become detached from the interests of those who participate in it. The consequence is that consumers suffer from being unable to gain the experiences they seek – and at that point some will turn to the unlicensed market.
This is where the principle behind the Laffer curve is useful. Traditionally applied to taxation, it suggests there is an optimal balance - too little intervention creates risk, but too much can drive behaviour in unintended directions.
In a growing number of jurisdictions around the world, we are starting to see the effect of over- regulation manifest in burgeoning black markets. In Great Britain, research indicates that billions of pounds are already being staked annually with unlicensed operators.
Regulations are likely to fail – however well- intended – if they are imposed without regard for the views of the consumers they are designed to protect. This is particularly the case where regulatory measures are implemented without any attempt to test their likely impacts. As my late friend, Professor Peter Collins once observed, regulation is often “driven by a concern to be seen to be doing something even if there is no great confidence that the regulations imposed will actually reduce harm”. That is the paradox: measures intended to improve safety within the regulated market can, if poorly calibrated, weaken it.
Which of course prompts another question:
Question: Why do we talk so little about enjoyment?
The vast majority of gambling discussions are overwhelmingly positive – because the vast majority of gambling experiences are. I have dozens of conversations with my customers every day of the week, because that is the way that I understand whether my team and I are doing a good job. Those exchanges are invariably positive. The problem is that the public policy debate rarely hears from the people I talk to. Instead, it tends to be dominated by people who, for a variety of reasons, seem unable to distinguish between gambling and harmful gambling. As an industry, we have to rediscover a sense of pride in what we do. To do that, we have to put the
Beyond an optimal point, excessive taxation and over- governance can reduce investment, jobs and overall tax yield.
Both under- regulation and over-regulation can increase consumer harm, with balanced regulation delivering the safest long-term outcomes.
customer at the heart of everything that we do; and we have to develop the confidence to stand up for what we believe.
There are serious discussions to be had about harms from gambling but if the conversation is only ever about harm, we will fail the consumer and the policies that are enacted may do more damage than good.
Question: “Simon, I saw in a LinkedIn post your argument that Leicester Square should become London’s official Casino Quarter. Is that genuinely achievable, and what would it actually mean?”
I genuinely think it’s both a realistic ambition and a very strong marketing idea.
Over the past fourteen years, Leicester Square’s casino offer has evolved well beyond a handful of standalone venues. With continued investment from the Hippodrome, Empire, Horizon, Rialto and the forthcoming Trocadero Casino, this part of the West End is increasingly functioning as a genuine casino cluster. When we opened the Hippodrome in 2012, the aim was never simply to create another casino. It was to help redefine what a modern casino could be - broader, experience-led, and more relevant to a major global city.
Today, the Leicester Square venues collectively bring tourism, employment, footfall, dwell time and substantial private investment into central London, while operating safely at scale. At the same time, both the Greater London Authority and Westminster City Council continue to talk about strengthening London’s night-time economy and creating a more genuinely 24-hour city.
The reality is that casinos are already among the very few sectors actively delivering that ambition.
Formally recognising Leicester Square as London’s Casino Quarter would create a powerful new marketing identity, strengthen inward investment, and acknowledge an area already contributing significantly to the capital’s evolving leisure economy.
Other international cities would likely recognise and promote such a cluster without hesitation.
London should too. ASK SIMON!
If you’d like Simon to answer your question, email Matt now:
casinointernationalmatt@gmail.com
MAY 2026 11
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76
