SIS draws UK scrutiny over reported Santeda deal and gambling connections

Sports Information Services (SIS) is facing increased attention in the UK gambling sector following reporting about a 2022 commercial agreement with Curaçao-based gambling operator Santeda International B.V. The reported arrangement emerged from the Casino Secrets data leak and has raised questions about supplier relationships, shareholder interests and compliance processes.

The available reporting does not establish that SIS shareholders approved the Santeda agreement or directed its terms. Entain has expressly said it was not a party to the commercial or customer arrangements negotiated by SIS and said it had raised concerns after the relationship became known.

Offshore gambling links draw scrutiny in the UK market

The issue centres on a reported contract signed between SIS and Santeda in 2022. According to documents reported in connection with the Casino Secrets leak, SIS agreed to supply services to websites associated with Santeda for an initial two-year period.

The agreement reportedly included automatic renewal unless either side chose to terminate it. The documents also indicated that SIS would receive a percentage of revenue generated from losing bets placed through Santeda brands. Sports Information Services has not publicly confirmed how much revenue was generated under the arrangement and it remains unclear from the reporting whether the contract is still active.

The distinction between a commercial relationship and the conduct of an operator is important. The reported documents concern a business-to-business supply agreement. They do not, by themselves, establish that SIS endorsed any particular activity by Santeda or that SIS shareholders were involved in customer-level decisions.

What the reported contract contained

Sports Information Services is a specialist supplier of betting content and data. Its current corporate website describes services covering horse racing, greyhound racing, virtual racing, competitive gaming and numbers products. The company says it works with operators internationally and provides hundreds of thousands of betting events each year.

The reported Santeda contract therefore involved the supply of business services rather than the operation of the gambling websites themselves.

One significant point in the reporting is that the contract did not permit SIS data to be used in the UK. However, the Guardian reported that SIS supplied information to several Santeda-linked websites that its earlier investigations had found were accessible to UK customers.

Under UK law, an operator needs a Gambling Commission operating licence to provide commercial gambling to consumers in Great Britain. An overseas gambling licence does not, on its own, authorise an operator to offer gambling to British consumers.

Santeda's regulatory record

The concerns surrounding Santeda are not limited to the reported SIS arrangement. Spain's Dirección General de Ordenación del Juego or DGOJ, issued a formal administrative sanction against Santeda International B.V. in March 2023.

The regulator's published decision states that Santeda International B.V. had offered online gambling to people identified as residents of Spain without the required authorisation through the MyStake portal. The final decision imposed a €5 million fine and a two-year disqualification from carrying out the relevant gambling activities or obtaining the required authorisation. It also ordered the immediate cessation of the activity in Spain.

That regulatory record should be distinguished from wider allegations concerning Santeda's activities in other jurisdictions. A regulatory decision relating to Spain establishes what the Spanish authority determined in that specific proceeding. It does not automatically establish the truth of every separate allegation made elsewhere.

SIS shareholder interests under discussion

The issue has received additional attention because SIS has significant ownership links to established UK gambling businesses.

Reporting identified Entain as holding approximately 23% of SIS through its Ladbrokes interests. William Hill was reported to hold close to 20% while Fred Done was reported to hold an 8% stake and serve as a SIS director. The three interests form part of a shareholder structure in which bookmaker-related investors hold more than half of Sports Information Services.

The structure is relevant to the public discussion because shareholders can benefit financially from company distributions without necessarily participating in every commercial decision. The reported material specifically indicates that the bookmaker shareholders were understood to have been unaware of the Santeda agreement when it was signed because of controls intended to restrict access to commercially sensitive information about rival operators.

Dividend figures require context

The financial aspect of the story has also attracted attention. Companies House filings reviewed in the reporting indicated that SIS shareholders received at least £37 million in dividends after the Santeda contract was signed, including a £30 million dividend declared in 2023. The £30 million figure is also reflected in a regulatory-market filing describing SIS's financial results for the year ended 31 March 2023.

Those figures should not be interpreted as money earned directly from the Santeda contract. The reporting does not state that the full dividend amount came from Santeda-related business. Rather, the issue is that dividends distributed by SIS included money received during a period when the Santeda relationship existed.

The reported figures therefore concern shareholder distributions from SIS as a company, not a calculation of Santeda-derived profits attributable to each investor.

Entain responds to the scrutiny

Entain has sought to distinguish its position as a minority shareholder from Sports Information Services's operational decision-making.

Stella David, who is the current chief executive of Entain, has also maintained a public position against unlicensed gambling sponsorships in British sport. Entain has separately called for stronger restrictions on promotional relationships involving operators that do not hold the required UK licences.

Stella David, chief executive of Entain, commented:

“not a party to the commercial or customer arrangements SIS decides to strike. Now that this relationship has come to light, we take it very seriously and have raised our concerns to SIS”.

The statement makes clear that Entain regards the reported relationship as a matter requiring attention while maintaining that it was not directly involved in the underlying SIS customer arrangement.

Campaigner calls for stronger industry controls

Matt Zarb-Cousin, co-founder and Director of External Affairs at Gamban, has also commented on the issue. His criticism focuses on the broader relationship between licensed gambling businesses and the unlicensed market rather than on an allegation that the shareholder companies personally operated offshore websites.

Matt Zarb-Cousin, co-founder and Director of External Affairs at Gamban, commented:

“While the UK’s biggest gambling firms have been warning about the risks of growing the illicit market if the government increases tax and regulation, the very same firms are profiting from it. If the gambling industry is concerned about the black market, it needs to get its own house in order by cutting all ties with it.”

Gamban identifies Zarb-Cousin as a co-founder and describes him as a director focused on external affairs.

His comments represent an advocacy position and should be distinguished from independently established facts about the SIS agreement.

SIS sets out its compliance position

SIS has stated that customers are required to use its products only where doing so is lawful and where the necessary regulatory licences are held.

SIS added:

“Customers commit that they will comply with all such laws and licences at all times. Where Sports Information Services becomes aware that these terms are not being adhered to it takes corrective action to enforce the position, up to and including suspension or termination of contracts.”

That statement provides the company's stated contractual compliance framework. The reported Santeda agreement has nevertheless generated questions about how supplier due diligence, territorial restrictions and ongoing monitoring operate when services are provided to international gambling businesses.

The distinction between contractual requirements and their enforcement is particularly relevant in regulated markets. The UK Gambling Commission states that it works to disrupt illegal gambling at scale and that overseas licensing does not substitute for a British operating licence where gambling is offered to consumers in Great Britain.

What happens next

The immediate issue is whether the SIS-Santeda contract remains active and, if it does, what compliance measures apply to the relationship. The latest reporting states that the status of the contract has not been established publicly and Sports Information Services has not confirmed whether it has been terminated.

The matter also illustrates why corporate ownership, commercial independence and regulatory responsibility need to be considered separately. Holding shares in a supplier does not automatically mean an investor controls every commercial agreement made by that supplier.

For SIS, the continuing focus is likely to be on the effectiveness of its contractual safeguards and monitoring procedures. For its shareholders, the issue is whether their governance and oversight arrangements provide appropriate visibility into material commercial and compliance risks.

Conclusion

The reported Santeda agreement has placed Sports Information Services at the centre of a wider discussion about how gambling suppliers interact with offshore operators and how shareholder relationships should be understood within regulated markets. The available evidence supports a careful distinction between the reported contractual arrangement, the separate regulatory record involving Santeda in Spain and the positions expressed publicly by SIS and Entain.

The Spanish enforcement decision against Santeda is a documented regulatory matter. The details of the SIS contract, including its revenue provisions and duration, have been reported from leaked documents. At the same time, there is no established basis in the cited reporting to conclude that Entain, William Hill or Fred Done personally approved or directed the contract.

The key questions now concern transparency, due diligence, territorial compliance and whether contractual controls were sufficient in practice. Those questions can be examined through documented filings, regulatory decisions and the companies' own statements without extending the available evidence into conclusions that it does not support.

FAQs

What is Sports Information Services in the gambling industry?
Sports Information Services or Sports Information Services, is a betting content and data supplier providing racing, competitive gaming and numbers-related products to gambling operators.

What is the reported SIS and Santeda agreement about?
The reported 2022 agreement concerned the supply of SIS services to Santeda-linked websites. Reporting based on leaked documents said the contract included a revenue provision linked to losing bets.

Was the Sports Information Services Santeda contract allowed to cover UK betting activity?
The reported contract did not permit SIS data to be used in the UK. Separate UK regulatory rules require operators offering commercial gambling to British consumers to hold the appropriate Gambling Commission licence.

Is Santeda licensed in the UK?
The reporting states that Santeda does not hold a UK Gambling Commission licence. The UK's licensing framework requires a British operating licence for commercial gambling offered to consumers in Great Britain.

Was Santeda fined by Spanish authorities?
Yes. Spain's DGOJ issued a 2023 decision imposing a €5 million fine and a two-year disqualification on Santeda International B.V. for offering gambling without the required Spanish authorisation.

Does Entain own part of Sports Information Services?
Yes. Reporting has identified Entain as holding approximately 23% of SIS through its Ladbrokes interests.

Does William Hill have a stake in Sports Information Services?
Reporting has described William Hill as holding close to 20% of SIS. William Hill's current operating website states that its UK-facing business is owned by evoke plc.

Was Fred Done involved with SIS?
Fred Done has been reported as holding an 8% Sports Information Services stake and serving as a SIS director.

Did the shareholder companies know about the Santeda contract?
The latest reporting says the relevant bookmaker shareholders were understood to have been unaware of the deal when it was signed because of controls intended to protect commercially sensitive information.

Has Sports Information Services confirmed whether the Santeda contract ended?
No public confirmation identified in the latest reporting establishes whether the contract has been terminated. Sports Information Services has stated that it can take corrective action, including suspension or termination, where contractual licensing requirements are not followed.