A bizarre war of words has broken out between Wetherspoons and the Financial Times over just how reliant the hospitality giant is on revenue from gaming machines.
As the discussion and rumours swirl around the taxation rates of machines in the UK, the levels of income that could be garnered from the British pub chain’s gaming machines were a point of focus last week in the Financial Times.
Assuming a profit margin of 5% for other aspects of the business, the Financial Times projects that the percentage of profits from gaming machines could reach 27% for the 2026 financial year, a comparable proportion to food at 30%.
The Financial Times did, however, acknowledge during the article that for what ‘befits a stupid question, they’ve put very little work into finding an answer’.
This has been dismissed by Wetherspoons and the firm’s Chair, Tim Martin, a previous donor of the Conservative Party and the Reform Party, with a London Stock Exchange (LSE) announcement by the group rebutting the publication’s methodology.
The pub giant pulled no punches in slamming the approach of the Financial Times, stating that the Times journalist ‘has allocated all Wetherspoons’ costs and overheads, other than fruit machine rentals, to bar, food and hotel rooms’.
Even Rachel Reeves was collateral damage in Martin’s response, as the firm stated: “You don’t need to be J.K. Galbraith, Milton Friedman, or even Rachel Reeves, to regard this as voodoo economics.”
Furthermore, iGaming Expert also considered whether the taxation of gaming machines by the new Prime Minister Andy Burnham could lead to the dilution of the positive impact of business tax easing on the hospitality industry.
However, Wetherspoons’ statement was keen to highlight that there are key differences between the gaming machines allowed in pubs and betting venues, providing the new Labour leader an avenue to aim for gambling machines whilst leaving the income of pubs intact.
The rumbling between the Financial Times and Wetherspoons has reached levels far beyond the technical nuances of gaming machines, though, with the LSE statement also taking issue with the use of the term ‘grotty’ to describe their establishments.
The Financial Times article did clarify that the use of this term “is a crowbarred reference to TS Eliot, not to the quality of Wetherspoons’ estate”.
Closing his statement, Martin said: “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.”
iGaming Expert Analysis: Who knows where this war of words will head next; machines could be next in line for a tax hike, but to what extent that will impact Wetherspoons, only time will tell. As the fate of the full spectrum of machine gaming lies in the hands of the King of the North – Andy Burnham – I’m not confident he could tell the difference between a fruity and a FOBT.
But hey, who is keeping score … apart from Tim Martin.
