Hello. Good afternoon or good evening, everyone.

Before handing over to Pascal Chaffard, just to let you know that the English press release version will be disseminated soon. Nevertheless, the slide deck is available on our website.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Marc. Hello and good evening, or maybe good afternoon, according to your time zone, and welcome to this FDJ United Q1 2026 revenue presentation.

You have recognized me. I'm Pascal Chaffard, the CFO for the moment, but very soon full-time chief online betting and gaming business unit officer and also group strategy and operational transformation leader of the group.

You may have seen that Dan Levy will become soon our new CFO starting mid-May. The press release has been disseminated some minutes ago also.

He was previously amongst his senior positions the CFO of Ipsos Group, one of the world's leading market research and opinion polling firms. Q1 2026 will be my last financial communication as the CFO of this company.

This slide deck, as Marc has said, is available online in the investor section of our corporate website, you can follow the presentation with me easily. I drive you to next slide.

During the first quarter 2026, the GGR rose by 1% to €2,175 million, while revenue declined by 3% to €895 million, reflecting €24 million of calendar gaming tax increases. There is no news in that.

Those increases were forecasted, were decided last year. There is no new increase that not have been anticipated.

It's just the effect of them when we compare our figures to the figures of Q1 2025, just to be clear. The year had started well, but the activity has been globally weaker since the end of February, resulting from two main factors: low sports betting margin, or high payouts, as you wish, not compensated by higher stakes across the board, and also a lower activity in draw-based games in the French lottery.

I will come back to that. For the French lottery and retail sports betting, the GGR remained broadly stable at €1,740 million, while the revenue stood at €627 million, down 2%.

It's also the result of the gaming tax increase. Again, no news, just a gap when we compare to the situation of the Q1 last year, as you remember, maybe, the tax increase in France was put in place from July the 1st of 2025, we will lap them next July.

We will see on the following slides each BU performance in more detail, but in a nutshell, for the LSF BU, the performance mainly reflects a continued strong momentum in instant games, but a shorter lottery cycles and a high comparison base for draw games, and also, as I've said, more globally, high payouts on sports betting. Those headwinds in LSF should be temporary, one-off, and we still aim growth on the full year.

I will also come back to that in more detail. For online betting and gaming, OBG, the GGR was broadly flat, 1% decline to €342 million, but the revenue fell by almost 8% to €213 million, reflecting there also €9 million of gaming tax increase in France, Netherlands, and Romania.

Again, no news, no new elements that have been decided lately, but the impact of the decisions that have been taken in 2025. Excluding the Netherlands and the UK, the GGR increased by 6%, and the revenue remained broadly stable, -1%.

Clearly, the situation in the UK remains difficult, the one in the Netherlands also, at a smaller extent. We have changed the management of the BU, already launched a number of actions to turn around the performance, beginning with the UK, Netherlands, but not limited to those jurisdictions.

We will see an improvement in the performance over the year, and we aim to be back to growth in H2, first on the GGR, thanks to the ongoing action plan. I will come back to that in more detail in the next slides.

Globally, based on the Q1 performance, for the all FDJ United, we expect for the full year a slight increase in GGR, but a slight decrease in revenue, and recurring EBITDA between 23% and 24%. I will come back also to this more in details at the end of my presentation.

If you move to the next slide, you will see a slide with, on the left, the split of the GGR by business units, and on the right, the split of the revenue by BU. Between the two, we have indicated in global impact the €20 million €24 million that I already talked about for the quarter, €15 million on LSF and €9 million on OBG.

I've quoted all these figures before. Before we deep-dive into the two main BUs, maybe two words on international lottery, where revenue was €41 million, up 7% on the Q1 '25 basis, reflecting non-recurring elements of PLI, most notably an exceptional number of jackpot winners in draw games last year.

Anyway, we are happy with this performance this year. Payments and Services, the revenue has reached €14 million.

It's down 7%, but it's as forecasted, as the BU continues to streamline and focus its offering on the more profitable products, no problem and no impact on EBITDA linked to that. If we move to the next slide, we will deep-dive on lottery and sports betting retail, called LSF.

As I said in my introduction, the GGR was stable. The revenue declined by 2% for reasons that now you have fully understood, I think.

For the lottery, if we look at only the lottery, not sports betting retail at this moment, the GGR was up 0.4%, while the revenue declined by 1.8% to €519 million, thanks to high comps for draw-based games, and as instant games continue to perform strongly. For draw games, the GGR was down 3.5% and the revenue down 6.2% to €199 million.

We have basically no rolling jackpot following the two Friday the 13th super draws in February and March, as the super jackpot were won at the first draw each time. Over the quarter, we also recorded only three long cycles versus 16 -- one, six -- in Q1 2025, it makes a huge difference.

We had also a very high EuroMillions comparison base driven by last year in March a record of €250 million jackpot, which, for the first time in the history of this game, and that has attracted a lot of new players, particularly online, and generated a significant additional stakes, and we didn't have this element this year, the basis of comparison is a little bit harsh. When it comes now to instant games, we are very happy of the continuous momentum.

We have fueled the portfolio animation with new games, and the results are good, with the GGR plus 3.4% at €880 million and the revenue up 1.1% at €320 million. This is in line with the record fourth quarter of 2025, where we also saw a strong performance of the scratch games.

This performance was driven by a number of launches. I can just give two two examples: Chèvre d'Or, or gold, each time we use gold, it seems to work well.

Chèvre d'Or, a €5 game in January, and a game called La Cible, a €2 game in February. Online lottery, the revenue increased by 1% to €81 million, thus a penetration rate of 15.5%.

When you look at those numbers on stakes, it's a little bit better, 17%. The growth was driven by an increase in the number of players and also a strong performance of exclusive online games, with a GGR at around 50%, 5-0.

It should be noted that the online lottery sales were up 14%, 1-4, at mid-March 2026, although the comparison base was very high at the end of March 2025, when I explained that we had this exceptional EuroMillions jackpot that has approached and reached the record level of €250 million, and it has driven among all of March a super activity in online lottery. The performance of online lottery in the first quarter has to be looked at with the context of this exceptional draw in 2025.

Again, just before this draw has occurred, as the basis of comparison, we were up 14%, nothing to be worried on. For retail sports betting now, the decline of GGR and revenue is mainly explained by less attractive sporting events and a high payout ratio of 76.8%.

It's above the regulatory full-year cap. Usually, what happens when you have high payouts like that, it comes with a high level of stakes, but not in Q1, where the high payouts have not been mitigated by a high level of stakes.

Why that? Because the attractiveness of the offer was less important.

I think it's been interesting to give an example and to explain a little bit this point. Sports betting retail is very dependent on football.

Football is 2/3 of the activity of sports betting retail, no in-play, only a pre-match offer. As we are very football dependent and European championship dependent, when you have some of the events that are very very unattractive, it leads to this situation.

For example, we had some games like Club Brugge-PAOK, or Brighton-Roma, or Bayern-Arsenal, with the first leg results 5-2 or 6-1 respectively. If I may say, respectively, it has decided the outcome of the second game before the beginning of this game, thus discouraging many punters from betting on the second leg.

Just to explain why we had this element of offer that was not great. It will not be seen at the same level on the online sports betting, as football is less important, and also you have the capacity to play during the games, which also is another mitigation of that.

Okay. On retail sports betting, we expect a good momentum, not exactly now, it will come in two months now, during the main events of the year, i.e., the football World Cup, next June and the beginning of July, with more games than the previous World Cup and thus more capacity to drive a high level of activity.

As I said, sports betting offline is very football-dependent, it will be for the good during this event. To conclude on LSF, the activity was a bit weaker than expected in the second part of the Q1, in February and March.

This situation is temporary, and we expect the rest of the year to be broadly in line with our initial expectation. Again, I will come back to that when I will explain the full-year guidance.

Now let's move to online betting and gaming on the next slide. At OBG, we have done lots of things since two months.

We have implemented a new organizational structure, as and a new head, and I'll come back to that later. We have continued our marketing initiatives, notably the finalization of our multi-license strategy in Sweden, which is very successful.

In one word, we used to have just one license in Sweden. We divided our licenses into five licenses, and it has driven an extra business with a double-digit growth in Q1, very good.

In France, at the end of the quarter, we have completed the unification of the online sports betting and online poker activities under the Unibet brand. Now we have only a Unibet brand to drive our activity in France for sports betting and poker, and we still have the brand ZEturf for the horse racing offers.

All those offers, poker, sports betting, and horse racing, is available via a single account shared across all gaming verticals, enabling synergies and cross-selling on a very high level. What has also driven this merger of the brand is an improved clarity of the offering and also it supports digital growth and operational efficiency, as you may have understood.

This was a very important achievement, a complex project, in our knowledge, never done in this industry, and again, it's a technical and a commercial success. We are now in line with our expectations following this merger and even above, in particular in horse racing and in poker.

This is very good and this was a very good achievement. Now if we look at the activity of the all BU, the GGR, as I said some minutes ago, was broadly flat, small decline of 1%, but the revenue fell by 7.7%, as I explained also, linked to the tax increase impacts.

The tax increase impacts, to a majority in France, I already said that it was from 1st July 2025. It's also the Netherlands, with another layer of increase that has started 1st January 2026, and Romania, that has started 1st August 2025.

We will see that in the Q2, because it has started 1st April 2026. In the UK, to be clear, the situation remains difficult, with revenue still down by more than 20%, clearly not at the level expected so far.

We will come back to that with action plans underway to turn around as quickly as possible this situation. This is our top priority.

In the Netherlands, there has been a marked improvement, with the decline reduced, but still a decline for the revenue in a shrunk legal market. The KSA has published lately the figures for the full year 2025, which is again more than 20% decrease of the market as a whole.

We still had in Q1 a year-on-year impact because we had the last measure of regulation that had been taken mid Q1 2025, but starting Q2, we will be in a more comparable situation as to envisage the comparison this versus last year. We have already taken a number of actions that will have a positive impact starting Q2.

Now, if we exclude the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, the GGR grew by 6.3%, which is not bad, and revenue remained broadly unchanged. To be noted also on OBG, the number of active players has increased on the quarter by 3% compared to the first quarter of 2025.

Our player acquisition is the pillar of the business because we want to do strategic marketing and responsible gaming strategy. The question is more how we can drive also more revenue per player while being fully compliant with RG and AML.

This is one of also my top priority, not as the CFO, but maybe also as the CFO, but as chief BU officer. If you move to the next slide, we have written down a number of elements that explains what are our top priority to streamline the organization, to drive operational excellence, and also the number of areas of improvement that we have already worked on, and the action plans that are already underway.

The first element, to turn around the performance in UK and Netherlands in top priority through targeted task forces, it has already begun. Second, the shift to an ROI-led marketing and generosity.

We are not enough ROI-led to date, we have to spend better in marketing and in generosity, and we have identified what we have to do. Now it's a question of putting it in live, and it will be done rapidly.

Third, it's to unlock the player value through better player experience, taking into account the full picture. It means not only the commercial picture, but also product picture, the responsible gaming, AML picture, looking at the activity 360 degrees.

We also have identified a number of improvements that are about to be put in place. We also, as I said previously, streamlined the organization and continue to streamline this organization, and we have worked on the roadmap to secure our proprietary platform rollouts, as it has been said two months ago when we talked about the full year 2025.

It will be done by end 2027, and it's underway, and we are working hard on it. This was what I wanted to say on the elements of action plans on OBG.

If now we come back to the last slide of this presentation, which is the full-year 2026 guidance. What we now aim for 2026 is a slight increase in the GGR, a slight decrease in revenue, but based on LSF, despite the temporary impact observed in Q1, a revenue up and a GGR up, at a higher level, obviously.

On OBG, with the link that you can make with what I said on the action plans, we are aiming for an improvement in the annual performance of the BU compared to the Q1, with a return to growth in GGR, at least, in the second half of the year, driven by the implementation of the ongoing action plans, both that I've mentioned and a number of others that I didn't mention here yet. Globally, this will have an impact on our recurring EBITDA margin.

We aim it to be in the range 23% to 24%. What is very important for you to have in mind is that we are working hard to secure growth, we don't want to damage this capacity to grow by doing crazy things on the costs, we will continue to drive a lot of performance, but to be clear, our number one priority is to come back to growth, and we are fully focused on this objective.

Thank you very much. Now I'm open to your questions that I will answer along with Marc Willaume, the IR that is just next to me.

Thank you. My first question is on LSF.

Just for sort of clarity, are you suggesting that the performance is simply sort of a matter of luck, they were tough comps and you were more unlucky than you expected to be in the second half of the quarter, or are there areas of misexecution or anything operational that you need to turn around? That's my first question.

Okay. Thank you, and good evening, Ed.

For LSF, it's very clear. It's a question of tough comps for the quarter and also a lack of luck, if I may say, on our side, which translate into the fact that we don't think that we will compensate that throughout the rest of the year, but no structural problem, as we still think that we are able to continue at a pace that is the one that we have forecasted on Q2, Q3, Q4.

No structural problem. The question is that we had some temporary, one-off elements in Q1, but temporary, it means that we don't expect them to translate into other gaps in the other quarters.

Okay. I had two follow-ups on OSB, if that's okay.

The first one's on the UK performance. It's I think probably quite a weak number from where people would have expected.

Is there a sense you've got for what the market did in Q1? Some of your peers have reported sort of decent growth there.

Just sort of color versus the market, I guess. The bigger question is, you've guided towards the second-half turnaround in OSB.

I guess the question is, do you sort of know what it's going to take? You've outlined some action plans, but obviously you're moving into that role, Pascal.

You've said that it's a big priority, but you've also got to identify the problems. Are you sure you know what the diagnosis is?

I guess connects to that, does the 23% to 24% margin assume that you're putting more cost into the business to turn it around, or are you having to show more efficiencies? Because obviously OSB is providing a lot of the efficiencies through this year and next year for your sort of overall medium-term guidance.

Thanks.

Yeah. Thank you again, Ed.

First, the question of why it is weaker than we expected in the UK and how we will handle this turnaround. Of course, the first answer, the main answer, is that I think that we have maybe underestimated the difficulty of fine-tuning the compliance rules to get to a situation where we are fully compliant, if we talk about RG and AML rules, but at the same time, efficient commercially.

What I've seen, and what we are working on, is that we have maybe worked too much in silos from the different teams, and we need to work this element more in a 360 degrees view across all the elements, because it's a question of fine-tuning. This fine-tuning has not been done enough correctly to date, and we are working very hard to find a way to turn it around, and I think it's clearly achievable.

We have also some other elements that we are challenging, the way we are doing our marketing, are we recruiting the good players, are we good at CRM, etc. We have a number of improvements on all the elements also.

We have also some elements to move in our casino product. I don't talk about the sports betting product, because it's what it is, but it's 15% of the business in the UK, I cannot blame only the sports betting product.

We have a number of elements. I cannot say that I have understood 100%, and it will be solved in two months, but we have done the job to get into the details and to get the number of actions that will have a positive effect.

What is behind the 23% to 24% is that what we didn't want to present to you today is something where we cut all of the marketing costs, we are achieving the right level of EBITDA, we are very happy in 2026, but not that happy after. What we want to do is to do things right, and I didn't say that we will not reduce some marketing costs, because at some point, the question is the efficiency of the cost.

Here also to review all this question of efficiency of the cost. I said I'm here to do that because it relates much more on OBG, this question of efficiency of marketing costs.

I'm quite comfortable with what we are doing around the marketing costs on the monopoly, the French monopoly, no problem here. I think this is not the point.

The point on marketing costs and how we deliver them is more a question not only in UK, but more globally on OBG. The work has begun well before I take command of this business unit, but it has to be accelerated and done in the proper way globally.

Thank you.

Hi. Thanks for taking my questions.

The first one, just following up on Ed's question, perhaps, on the UK, with the implementation of the new tax for iGaming starting April, is there anything to flag in the market currently, perhaps, I don't know, in terms of competitive intensity, black market, or anything? I know it's a bit early, but just in case you have something.

The second question's on question of the Netherlands. You have now cycled most of the past regulation comps since mid-February.

Can we get more color on the GGR momentum in March onwards, which should have been on a cleaner base? Thank you.

Yeah. Okay.

First element, it's a little bit too early, three weeks after the beginning of the new taxation, to see what are the behavior of the different actors. What we know is that what we fear among all the operators, not us in particular, but among all the operators, is development of the offshore offer.

Because here we have flagged that clearly to the UKGC and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, last year, end of last year, and they said that they have understood the point and they will give more capacity to the UKGC to fight on that. We are not completely sure that it's fully done for now, but it is something that we will continue to work on, because we cannot have more stringent regulation rules and tax levels and not having an efficient fight against the illegal actors.

We have explained in detail to the UKGC and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is possible to fight against the illegal actors. It's not because it's online that it's impossible.

It is possible. There is ways to do that.

Now we will push on that, because we want fair play in this field. It's okay to have at the end of the day more tax, it's okay to have more objective of protecting the players.

It's not okay to not have a level playing field that is the same for everybody. Second question was about the Netherlands.

Yes, what we can see now is that we are coming from the situation where we were declining to a situation where we will be flat-ish, because this is our first objective, to stabilize the situation, taking some actions on our side to be able to help this situation to get better. We are working on how we can bring some growth, but it will not be an enormous growth in this jurisdiction.

First objective, to come from decreasing to flat, then come from flat to a certain level of growth possible in the future.

Thank you, Pascal. Can I just ask a last question?

We've seen articles on some suggestions for EU tax for the industry. Do you have a view on this, how likely is it to happen or not?

EU tax, I didn't have that in mind, but clearly, as we are talking about activities that are regulated and taxed locally, jurisdiction by jurisdictions, I think it's unlikely that we could get an EU tax on the gaming industry. You have also to have in mind that the gaming industry is one of the more taxed industry.

I think it's unlikely, but I didn't have that in mind, but don't listen or read or believe any articles. I don't think it's credible, globally.

I will

deep-dive

on it.

Thank you very much.

Yes. Good evening, Pascal.

Sabrina Blanc from Bernstein. I have two questions for my part.

The first one is regarding the new guidance that you are providing for the full year. Just to understand where come from the bulk of the decrease of the guidance, if it's the weakness of the lottery in Q1 or is it the weakness of the UK?

The second question is regarding your action plan on the slide number 7. Can you provide some details regarding UK and the Netherlands targeted task forces that you would like to put in place?

Yeah. Okay.

Hello, Sabrina. On your first question, it's very clear.

On the lottery, we had an impact on the first quarter, part of the guidance reduced is linked to this impact in the first quarter, but we don't see an impact that will also be in Q2, Q3, Q4. It's a one-off on Q1.

We are below our expectations on Q1 and we don't think that we will compensate it on the rest of the year, but we will not either continue to be down. It's more a one-off Q1 in the way we see it.

In OBG, it's a little bit different. We have a decrease in Q1, and we think it will continue in Q2 and at a certain extent in H2, but at a lesser extent, making it possible for us to come back to growth, at least on GGR level, on the second part of the year.

What it means is that it's not magical when you change the management. You need to have some time to put in place really new things, we cannot expect to see things magically change over one quarter.

We cannot expect either to wait a long time to see things changing, what we are doing is that we are working very hard on the action plans, on the way we are managing this BU, the way we are getting in very detailed work to understand exactly what is going on and find a solution to everything. It means that we will turn around this.

We cannot promise that we will turn around this in the next quarter on 100%. This is what it means.

If to summarize, the impact on LSF is low and limited to Q1. The impact on OBG is higher when you look at this new guidance and is not limited to Q1.

If you're looking overall on the guidance, the adjustment in the guidance, for example, you may have seen in revenue from slight increase to slight decrease, let's assume that 2/3 of this is attributable to OBG and 1/3 to LSF. Basically, we've got the same split when it comes to the overall changes in EBITDA guidance.

Your second question is to understand a little bit more of what is behind what we say targeted task forces in UK and NL. The question is that what I saw is that we address the different difficulties that we have on those two jurisdictions more in silos.

It means that we had some marketing initiatives from the marketing, from product initiatives from the product, from RG requirements from the responsible gaming team, some AML requirements from the AML team, not working really around the same table to find the best way to implement all that and to make it globally efficient. It's a question of ways of working.

It's a question also on how we dig in the different details with the data that is needed to really understand what are the right decisions to take and the right moves to make. What I've done is to take all the specialists and lock them in the same room.

I didn't lock them in the real world, but make them work in the same room and talk to each other, because it has a link. What is completely true is that all those elements are totally linked.

For example, if you send a bonus to a player that is about to be blocked by the RG, and this player is playing and then blocked by the RG 10 minutes after, this is pointless. This is quite an extreme example just to make it very very simple.

It's far more complex and sophisticated, but it gives you a sense of if you try to solve the compliance problems that we had, because we had some fines, and it's not acceptable for us to some fine that related to actions not of FDJ United, but the previous owner of Kindred, but anyway, we don't want it to happen again. If we take the actions line by line, it's not a good way to look at the problem.

This changes quite a lot of the way we are looking at that. More facts, more figures, more also complete view of the situation.

I had a question regarding the UK. Could you remind us your market share in the UK?

From key question, you have mentioned that you don't expect right now a positive impact, but how long will you accept wait a recovery of the UK situation? Does that mean that you would be able to withdraw from the UK?

Our market share in the UK is region of low single digit globally. The situation in the UK is that we are profitable in the UK.

It's clear that it's more tense with the implementation of the new tax from April 1st, but we are profitable, we don't have any intention to withdraw from the UK. It's not the point.

The point is that we have some problems to solve. We have some way to find to be at the same time compliant and in capacity to grow.

We have seen, practically, that some of our competitors have been able to do that. We are not less smart than them.

The question is to do things right. We don't think that it will need years to come to this situation, because at the end, it's not a very structural, deep problem.

It's more the way we are working, as I said, the way we are implementing our different levers. For me, there is really no question of getting out of the UK.

The top priority is to fix this problem, and it's more a question of quarters, if not one quarter, some quarters, than years to get there, I can say.

Okay. Thank you very much, Pascal.

You're welcome.

Good evening, gentlemen. Thanks for taking my questions.

Just the first one. Can you give us a sense for how UK customers numbers have done?

Have they declined more or less than the GGR revenue numbers? Just a question on how you're mitigating the UK tax hikes.

Is there a risk that cutting back on marketing at this point will compound some of those player losses in terms of retention?

Yeah. I don't think I've really got well your first question.

Second very well, but your first question, if you may, I'm very sorry, if you may repeat your first question for me to be sure that I get it well.

Yeah. I guess some of your peers put out to the market or publish average monthly players or monthly users and so forth.

Can you give us a sense of the number of customers and how player growth has tracked relative to the GGR revenue numbers you put out for the UK tonight?

Okay. Thank you, and sorry, I didn't get it because the line was not very good, but it was very clear.

Yes, I think we can provide this kind of data, but I don't have it in my top of mind here. What I can say is that we are looking at the evolution of the active players jurisdiction by jurisdiction, because it's an important one.

We know that in total OBG Q1, we have grown the monthly players by a factor of 3% in total. I will come back maybe later, or offline, we need to provide you with more details on what is the number in the UK.

I have some other jurisdictions in mind, top of mind, but not the numbers for the UK. What is clear in the UK, just to give you some color, is that the main problem that we have is not the number of actives, it's clearly the drop in the average revenue per user.

This is our really main problem. We have an acquisition in the UK that is quite good.

Again, sorry not to have the number top of mind, but the acquisition is quite good. The question that we have is that it doesn't translate at the right level into an average revenue that is good.

It means also that is linked with this question of fine-tuning the compliance. It means that we are maybe not doing exactly what we should do to keep part of the player and to do the retention exactly as we should do it in the context of quite complex RG rules.

The question for me is more ARPU than question of acquisition. I don't know if I've answered

part of your question. On a quarter-over-quarter, we have a slight increase in the overall active player numbers.

As Pascal was mentioning, it's much more an ARPU.

Thank you, Marc.

number of actives, which is up let's say in single-digit figures, but definitely up quarter by quarter. Either versus the last quarter of '25 or the first quarter of '25, it's both ways it's up.

It confirms what I said. The question is that we are still quite okay recruiting players.

The question is how we drive more value over those players and it's clearly part of our priority in action plan. Again, it's not just a question of how we push on the both sides, because if we push clients that are becoming at-risk players, we don't get the value for the money that we spend.

This is the core of the question. Working on it, we'll see in the coming weeks or quarters the results of that.

Just to follow up on that, it sounds like most of the revenue headwinds are from the compliance, the RG, AML initiatives that you've put through rather than an acquisition problem. Then Q2, where we're going to see the hikes in the RGD, obviously to mitigate that, that's going to require cuts to marketing.

Now is that cuts to marketing going to compound those issues? Are we going to see a deceleration or decline in player numbers as a result of that?

Yeah. No.

If I well understood your question, it comes to the mitigation that we have put in place. What we have done to mitigate the UK, we have a little bit reduced the marketing spend, but not at a high extent, because what we aim also is to be able to take benefit of the situation of the smaller and weaker players that will be in much difficulty with the tax that is now higher than it was at a very high level.

We don't expect to reduce dramatically the level of marketing spend. Again, for us, the question is primarily how we work on the retention and on the ARPU of the active players that we have.

Got it. Then just finally, are you able to provide us with any color on how the UK business has tracked sequentially into April, perhaps?

Sorry, we didn't catch the end of your question. How the UK business is evolving sequentially?

Versus Q1.

You mean the beginning of Q2 versus Q1?

Correct.

It's really too early to have a view to be extrapolated over only two and a half weeks of Q2. It depends on how are the level of margin of sports betting.

It changes. We have some good weeks and bad weeks on that, it's not really a good way to see it just two and a half weeks between the now and the beginning of April.

I think it will be better to talk about that end of Q2, when we will have a little bit more vision on what happens. Really, on two weeks, I cannot provide, I think, a correct answer to your question.

Okay. Understood.

Thanks.

Hi, good evening. I've got three, if that's okay.

Hi.

Firstly, on the guidance revision, you said it's roughly 1/3 in lottery and sports betting France, 2/3 in OBG. Obviously, within lottery and sports betting France, there is sports betting France, which is also affected by player payouts and sports calendar, etc.

Just keen to understand how much you think is the impact of strictly lottery, strictly long cycles. It seems like in total, your guidance is about 60 million lower EBITDA.

That's 20 lottery and sports betting France. Any more help on what part is just lottery, just long cycles, please?

Okay. Yes, understood.

Your question is among the 1/3, what is the part of the draw games and what is the long cycle and what is the part of retail sports betting. Marc, have you got an insight on that?

We will look at it just to have the figures top of mind, but as Marc has already done a few minutes ago with another question, maybe we can get it. Globally, look at the weight of the two activities, I think I can say without any doubt that it's more long cycles than retail sports betting.

Also, it should be a part of sports betting.

Again,

you've got two things, basically. You've got overall say competition which were less appealing.

For example, some of the events were already down in the first part of the competition. The second leg, thank you, was definitely less attractive for the people don't even bet on the second leg part.

That's one thing. The other point is, on Kelly, we have quite a high level of ATP.

As Pascal mentioned, with this level of ATP does not automatically translate into stakes early in the weeks following. That's makes that at the end of the day, basically, the bulk of the impact is much more geared towards the lottery, a little bit more than sports betting.

That's helpful. Related to France, but this time

on

the competitive market. Yes,

yes,

thank you. No, just moving on to, yeah, in France, but on the competitive market this time.

You said it's too early to have a view on Q2, but I'm sure specifically for the France rebranding, you must be paying a lot of attention to how it's doing because I think it was at the very end of the quarter. Just curious if you had any extra color here.

It's 6% up in GGR, but that's mostly before the migration. How's it doing post

migration? Very important, and to be clear, we are following that day by day by day by day.

First, we had a very smooth and good migration. It means that we did it in the night of the 23rd to the 24th of March with just 2, 3 hours stopping the activity in the middle of the night.

It had just an impact on some NBA matches, but nothing more, and going back fully live morning of 24th of March. First thing, how it works on the migration of the accounts and the merger of the accounts of the players.

We did it with an accuracy of something like 99.9%, it worked very well. Second, what can we say about the activity on sports betting, poker, and horse racing since then?

On sports betting, we are a bit over our expectations that were taking into account the fact that we would have some impact, but we are over our expectations. In horse racing, we are far over our expectations because the Unibet player gets the full access to the offer of the turf and not only the B2B-like access.

We have a better cross-selling between the two and a better user experience. On poker, this is really very, very good, because we are far over our expectations.

We have moved from the Playtech poker to the Relax poker, Relax being our subsidiary. We have done a lot of adaptations, modifications, developments on the Relax poker to get all what it had and Playtech had not and what Playtech had and Relax had not.

We have really the best of the two and we are now currently at something like 70% over our expectation on that. Poker not the biggest part, but it's quite interesting.

Slightly over expectations on sports, far beyond on horse racing, and far, far, far beyond on poker. Globally, we are very happy today.

Still in the stabilizing zone, we still look at it very precisely. We have still to make the players that are not recurring players go back to the platform.

This is now the challenge that we have. We have focused our attention on the VIPs, the more important players, and the upper level of the players.

Now the question is to reactivate all the players that are not connecting every week or every month, but every quarter, less regular players. They have less value for us, it's less a problem, but still it's important to have the full base of Unibet merged into the new platform.

Globally, as I said previously, technically it's a success, and commercially it's a success. The next step that we will have to look at how it works is when we will be launched a new competitor in France.

We understood that it would be in May, somewhere in May, before the World Cup, and this is also why we had all this done work before to be really fully live and up and running for this moment. This new competitor is Bet365, a little bit more dangerous than previous one that have tried and failed to enter the French market.

Still cautious, happy.

Just to confirm what we are saying, Jaafar, the temporary miss first quarter on LSF is skewed a little bit more attributable to lottery, draw games, than to sports betting. Little bit.

Just a

confirmation. Okay.

Thank you. Then on what you said about the rebranding in France, you seem happy against expectations.

Obviously, I don't know what your expectations were. In Q1, you're doing +6% GGR across France and Sweden.

Are you still in growth, or was your expectation for a meaningful impact from the migration and you're not growing, but you're happy?

No, no, still in growth. Super.

Super. Thank you.

That's very clear.

Thank you to you all to have attended this Q1 session for FDJ United. I say rendezvous, like we say in French and English, maybe, the day after tomorrow, Thursday, on our AGM, and also next step will be the dividend that will be paid in the coming days.

Then I will not be there for the H1, but you will have the big pleasure to have Dan Levy and Stéphane Pallez presenting the H1 results end of July. Goodbye to you all and wish you all the best.