EuroMillions: should the jackpot be capped? 

What if EuroMillions stopped creating multimillionaires in order to distribute its winnings more widely? Jonas Van der Slycken, an economist and visiting professor at Ghent University, advocates a radical overhaul of the lottery model. His key proposal: to cap the EuroMillions jackpot at €10 million and redistribute the additional funds amongst more winners. 

A €10 million cap for EuroMillions 

The proposal is radical given the jackpots to which EuroMillions has accustomed its players. Jonas Van der Slycken suggests capping the top prize at €10 million. Above this amount, the money that would normally have been used to increase the jackpot would be redistributed. 

The economist is therefore not merely questioning the size of the jackpot. He is targeting the rollover mechanism itself. When no player wins the top prize, the available sum increases, gradually leading to the creation of massive jackpots. 

It is this principle that he wishes to put a stop to. Instead of concentrating an ever-increasing sum on an extremely small number of winners, the surplus money could fund more prizes. 

“Why make one person a multimillionaire when we can give a helping hand to many more people?” he asks. 

The change would be significant. Under his proposal, amounts exceeding the cap could be distributed in the form of prizes of 100,000 or 50,000 euros, notably through additional codes. Another possibility would be to use part of this money as start-up capital for young people. 

Huge jackpots for minuscule odds 

Three people in Belgium have recently become multimillionaires thanks to EuroMillions. One player won 80 million euros in early June, followed by another win of nearly 175 million euros the following month, and a third player won 111 million in August. 

These sums are all the more impressive given that the probability of winning the top prize with a single ticket is extremely low. 

According to Van der Slycken, the chance of winning the EuroMillions jackpot with a single ticket is around one in 140 million. He puts this figure into perspective by comparing it to the annual probability of being struck by lightning in Belgium, which he estimates at around one in three million. 

The economist offers a simple explanation: the staggering sums fuel the dream. The more astronomical the amounts become, the more they can attract players. Even when players know, rationally speaking, that they have very little chance of winning, they may overestimate the likelihood of that exceptional scenario occurring. 

The jackpot promises freedom rather than luxury 

However, the appeal of the lottery is not simply down to a desire for expensive cars, villas or extravagant spending. 

According to Jonas Van der Slycken, winners rarely mention extravagant plans. Their aspirations are often much more down-to-earth: buying a house, leaving money to their children or grandchildren, travelling, or simply living with greater financial peace of mind. 

The real aspiration behind winning the jackpot could therefore be independence. Money offers the chance to choose, to reduce certain worries and to have more time at one’s disposal. The economist also points out that people are increasingly encouraged to take responsibility for part of their own financial security, particularly through saving, investing or planning for retirement. 

Research from Ghent University cited by Van der Slycken also indicates that those surveyed consider €10 million to be the ideal amount to win. 

Winning €10 million already propels you into the ranks of the wealthiest 

The economist also puts the winnings into the context of the overall distribution of wealth. According to the figures he cites, winning the initial jackpot of one million euros in the standard lottery would already place a winner among the richest 4 per cent in Europe. With 10 million euros, a winner would join the ranks of the richest 0.1 per cent of Europeans. 

From this perspective, capping the EuroMillions jackpot at 10 million euros would not turn the top prize into a modest reward. The winner would remain extremely wealthy. 

This is one of the cornerstones of what Van der Slycken presents as a ‘regenerative’ lottery: retaining the principle of the game and substantial winnings whilst reducing the concentration of wealth amongst a small number of people. The model would be based on ‘more winners of smaller prizes’, rather than on the proliferation of exceptional fortunes. 

Does the lottery really exacerbate inequality? 

For Van der Slycken, the issue goes far beyond the fate of the big winners. He regards the lottery as a reflection of how society functions and its relationship to inequality. 

A ticket allows players to purchase, for a relatively modest sum, the chance of a spectacular financial rise. Because participation remains affordable, a very large number of players can collectively contribute to a huge prize fund. 

According to the economist, the problem becomes particularly apparent when one looks at who takes part. Research shows that people on modest incomes participate to a greater extent, largely because they may feel financially left behind. On average, they therefore spend a higher proportion of their budget on lottery products than households with higher incomes. He describes this phenomenon as a form of regressive tax. 

A second mechanism then comes into play: every euro spent on a ticket is money that can no longer be saved or invested. Whilst some households gradually accumulate capital, others devote part of their income to games of chance. Over the long term, he believes, this difference can contribute to widening the gap. 

An activity that nevertheless returns money to society 

This criticism must, however, be viewed in the context of how the Belgian lottery operates financially. 

According to figures from 2023, the Belgian National Lottery recorded an annual turnover of 1.5 billion euros. More than one billion euros is said to have been paid out to winners. 

At the same time, €220 million was allocated to charitable causes, whilst €145 million was paid to the Belgian State in the form of a monopoly royalty, in return for the right to operate the lotteries. 

Lotteries thus help to fund social, health, research, cultural and sporting projects. 

Van der Slycken does not deny these redistributions. His objection concerns the very structure of the game: in his view, these positive benefits do not prevent the system from normalising an extreme concentration of winnings. 

Tens of thousands of euros rather than a massive jackpot? 

Once the 10-million ceiling is reached, the additional funds could be converted into numerous smaller prizes. Van der Slycken explicitly mentions prizes of 100,000 euros or 50,000 euros. His reasoning is based on the idea that a sum much smaller than a 100-million jackpot can already profoundly change a household’s circumstances. 

He takes this logic a step further by referring to young adults. A portion of the proceeds could be allocated by lottery to provide them with start-up capital. 

Research from Ghent University cited by the economist suggests that an initial capital of 7,000 euros can already have significant consequences. Such a sum could offer greater choice at the start of one’s working life, prevent people from having to accept the first available job straight away, and help ensure a better match between a person’s talents and their job. 

Would players accept smaller jackpots? 

This is probably the scheme’s main potential weakness. Huge jackpots are currently one of the key factors driving the appeal of lotteries. Van der Slycken himself acknowledges this objection. Significantly reducing the maximum prize amount could therefore alter players’ behaviour. 

However, he believes the opposite effect cannot be ruled out. A system offering more winners and a greater chance of receiving a substantial sum could also become attractive. He cites the example of 21 friends from Zingem, in East Flanders, who collectively won €123 million in January. By playing as a group, they had voluntarily agreed to share the prize. Each person’s share was therefore around six million euros. For the economist, this example shows that a sum smaller than the total jackpot can still be sufficiently attractive. 

Would distributing more money lead to people working less? 

Another objection concerns the labour market. If more people were to receive significant sums, might some of them decide to work less? 

Van der Slycken considers this effect to be limited, particularly because a lottery would remain a game of chance with a limited number of winners. 

He also draws on psychological research into motivation: pay is not the only reason for working. Work also stems from intrinsic motivations, such as the desire to be entrepreneurial or to contribute to society. He also cites basic income experiments carried out in Canada in the 1970s and, more recently, in Germany. According to him, these did not lead to a mass withdrawal from the labour market. 

More limited changes may nevertheless occur. Young parents, for example, may devote more time to their children, whilst some people may find it easier to change jobs. 

Taxing winnings or directly reforming EuroMillions? 

Another approach would be to increase taxation on winnings. Van der Slycken compares Belgium to the Netherlands, where a 37.5 per cent tax on gambling winnings applies to amounts exceeding 449 euros. In Belgium, lottery winnings are tax-exempt. 

According to Van der Slycken’s estimate, such a tax could have raised more than 100 million euros in Belgium in 2024. In his scenario, this sum would, for example, have made it possible to provide start-up capital for 20,000 young people. 

He nevertheless regards taxation as an imperfect solution. A tax takes a portion of the winnings after they have been awarded but does not do away with the principle of the massive jackpot. He therefore favours a change to the way the game is designed. 

Lotteries have already begun to increase the number of winners 

The idea would not be entirely new. For several years now, lotteries have been experimenting with mechanisms that guarantee more winners, notably through the use of additional codes. However, moving to a strict cap would constitute a much more far-reaching change. The economist also expects there to be resistance to abandoning the jackpot roll-over mechanism. He believes that the public authorities could intervene by enshrining the principle of a greater number of winners in the public contract governing the activity. 

He also states that the idea of a lottery with more winners is attracting interest from several political parties, citing in particular Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for the Budget Vincent Van Peteghem. 

EuroMillions at 10 million: a different definition of the jackpot 

For Jonas Van der Slycken, money is only part of the answer. He also refers to social, cultural and personal capital: the relationships a person can rely on, their physical and mental health, their skills, and their cultural environment. A sudden windfall may transform a person’s wealth, but it does not automatically eliminate all other forms of inequality. 

That is why the economist also calls on players to reflect on their own choices. In his book, he proposes a boycott of lotteries with massive jackpots such as EuroMillions and urges those who wish to continue playing to opt for smaller lotteries instead. However, he believes that individual change cannot go as far as a change to the rules. 

His proposal thus reverses the traditional promise of the jackpot: instead of focusing the dream on one person becoming extraordinarily wealthy, he suggests distributing the same windfall amongst a larger number of winners.