What is net gaming revenue? See how NGR moves from GGR through bonuses and gaming duty, and why affiliate and payment costs sit below it.
← All insights
A sportsbook can report a record betting month and still produce disappointing net gaming revenue. An online casino can grow deposits while margin falls. The difference is usually buried in the revenue waterfall: promotional cost, gaming duty, affiliate settlements, payment fees, and the commercial terms that sit between player activity and actual earnings.
So, what is net gaming revenue? Net gaming revenue, or NGR, is the revenue an iGaming operator retains from gaming activity after bonuses and, depending on the definition, gaming duty are deducted from gross gaming revenue (GGR). It is a critical measure of the economics of a market, product, campaign, or partner relationship. It is also one of the most routinely misunderstood numbers in gaming finance.
The complication is not the arithmetic. It is that NGR does not have one universal formula. Its definition depends on the jurisdiction, the operator's accounting policy, contractual agreements, and the purpose of the calculation. That is precisely why a generic ERP setup and a spreadsheet-led close create risk.
At its simplest, GGR is the amount wagered or staked less winnings paid to players. NGR takes that starting point and deducts bonuses and promotional credits, plus gaming duty where the operator's or the contract's definition includes it.
The common formula is:
NGR = GGR - bonuses and promotional credits - gaming duty (where the definition includes it)
Affiliate commission, supplier and content revenue share, and PSP fees are not part of that formula. They are costs that sit below NGR. Affiliate commission is usually calculated on NGR, so deducting it to arrive at NGR would be circular.
The formula is useful, but it is not a statutory definition. In one jurisdiction, gaming duty may be calculated before promotional deductions. In another, specific bonus types may reduce the tax base while others do not. Some partner contracts define their own commission base with extra deductions, such as chargebacks or PSP fees. That is a contractual definition, and it should be labelled as one. The label may be identical; the number may not be.
For finance leaders, the practical question is not simply, “What is our NGR?” It is, “Which NGR are we looking at, calculated under which rules, and can we trace every component back to source activity?”
NGR sits in the middle of a broader financial waterfall. Treating it as the final revenue number blurs commercial reporting, statutory accounting, tax compliance, and cash reconciliation.
GGR measures gaming margin before the deductions that erode it. For a casino, this may be stakes less player wins. For sportsbook, it is generally stakes less returns, with treatment for voids, cash-outs, free bets, and settlement timing requiring clear rules.
GGR is a powerful operational metric, but it does not tell a CFO whether a market is profitable. A high-GGR market with elevated bonus costs, a costly payment mix, and a high duty rate can produce modest NGR.
NGR applies the relevant deductions to GGR. It is often used to assess market performance, calculate affiliate and platform revenue shares, evaluate campaign quality, and support partner settlements.
Consider a market that generates €10 million in GGR in a month. Bonus costs are €1.2 million and gaming duty is €2 million, so NGR is €6.8 million. Affiliate commission of €700,000 and PSP costs of €300,000 then sit below that line, in a separate contribution view:
NGR: €10.0m GGR - €1.2m bonuses - €2.0m gaming duty = €6.8m
Contribution after partner and payment costs: €6.8m NGR - €0.7m affiliate commission - €0.3m PSP fees = €5.8m
The GGR headline suggests one story. The retained economics tell another.
The sequence matters. The affiliate commission is calculated on NGR, so it cannot also be one of the deductions that produce NGR. If a contract defines the commission base as NGR less PSP fees and chargebacks, the settlement differs from one calculated on plain NGR. A system must preserve the rule, not merely produce a final journal entry.
NGR is not automatically the same as revenue recognised in the general ledger. Under the applicable accounting framework, the operator must determine the nature of its performance obligations, whether it acts as principal or agent, the timing of recognition, and the treatment of variable consideration.
Gaming duty is not VAT. It should not be handled as a generic sales-tax workflow simply because it is a tax linked to revenue. Nor should affiliate commissions, bonuses, and payment charges be blindly netted against revenue without a documented policy. The correct presentation depends on the facts, contracts, and accounting advice.
An iGaming ERP should allow finance to maintain a clear bridge from operational GGR through tax and commercial NGR measures to recognised revenue and the supporting ledger entries. That bridge is what makes the close defensible.
Operators working across regulated markets commonly need several NGR views at once. This is not duplication. It is controlled reporting.
A tax NGR calculation may follow local gaming-duty rules and filing periods. A partner NGR calculation may follow a revenue-share definition negotiated in a contract. A management view goes further, deducting affiliate commission, payment costs, and other acquisition costs to assess contribution by brand, channel, or market. That view is contribution, not NGR, and should be labelled that way. Financial reporting may use a separate recognized-revenue view.
Problems begin when finance tries to force those different purposes into a single spreadsheet formula. The result is typically manual overrides, arguments over whose number is correct, and audit trails that stop at a hard-coded cell.
The right design uses governed calculation logic, distinct deduction categories, effective dates, approval controls, and drill-down to transactions. It also makes differences visible. If tax NGR and commercial NGR diverge, that may be entirely valid. The system should explain the variance rather than conceal it.
Not every reduction in player value belongs in NGR, and not every cost should be treated the same way. Classification affects tax, partner settlements, management reporting, and financial statements.
Bonuses illustrate the issue. A free bet, deposit match, cashback offer, loyalty reward, and manual goodwill credit can have different funding sources, wagering conditions, expiry behaviour, and tax treatment. Finance needs to know whether the amount represents a player incentive, a contra-revenue item, a marketing expense, or an excluded item for a particular NGR definition.
Payment costs create a similar challenge. PSP fees may vary by method, country, currency, card scheme, and transaction outcome. Chargebacks and failed-payment fees can sit outside the initial deposit flow. If those costs are summarised only at a group level, commercial leaders cannot see the payment economics of a market or campaign. They belong below NGR, in the contribution view.
Affiliate arrangements require contract-level precision. Commission is a cost calculated on NGR, not a deduction inside it. Some arrangements are based on a percentage of NGR, some include minimums, tiered rates, negative carryover provisions, sub-affiliate shares, or exclusions for specific products and markets. An affiliate settlement that cannot be recalculated from governed source data is a recurring source of margin leakage and dispute.
The starting point is a written definition for each use case. Finance, tax, legal, commercial, and operations should agree on the inputs, deductions, calculation order, reporting currency, period cutoffs, and treatment of adjustments. “NGR” without a qualifier is too vague for a controlled finance process.
Next, map each component to a source and an owner. Gaming activity may come from the platform or trading system. Bonus data may come from a CRM or wallet. PSP costs may arrive through processor settlement files. Duty logic requires jurisdiction-specific rules. The ERP should receive standardised data at the level needed to reconcile and report, not just one monthly total.
Then configure the accounting and operational dimensions that make the number useful: legal entity, jurisdiction, brand, product, channel, affiliate, payment method, and currency. This enables a controller to reconcile the ledger, a tax leader to support a filing, and a chief commercial officer to assess whether a deal genuinely creates value from the same governed dataset.
Finally, build a close process around exceptions. Late game settlements, bonus corrections, PSP timing differences, currency movements, and post-period adjustments are normal in iGaming. They need visible accruals, reconciliation workflows, documented approvals, and reversal logic, not an end-of-month scramble.
Net gaming revenue is often presented on a dashboard as a single growth figure. That is useful, but incomplete. NGR is also where tax exposure, partner economics, promotional strategy, payment costs, and accounting policy meet.
For scaling operators, the goal is not to make the NGR calculation look simpler than it is. The goal is to make its complexity controlled, repeatable, and explainable across every market. That is the difference between a number that helps run the business and a number that has to be defended after the fact.
The blog is the long read. For your actual numbers — the engine, gaming duty, the close — book a short call with a partner who would configure it.
Independent, objective advice. We reply within one business day.
Prefer to talk? Email [email protected] · call us ›