Did some major UK gambling companies just shoot themselves in the foot?

Sami Kurvinen

Published on: 01 October 2026

3 minutes

UK gambling companies have been warning the government that offshore gambling is dangerous and could grow if UK regulation and taxes get tougher. But it seems that three of the UK’s biggest companies, Entain, Evoke and Fred Done (Betfred), have indirectly been caught in the middle here, as reported by The Guardian today.

What exactly has happened?

Entain (Ladbrokes), Evoke (William Hill), and Fred Done (Betfred) collectively own more than half of a company called Sports Information Services (SIS).

SIS provides horse-racing data, live sports content, and information that betting companies use to settle bets. It is a vital part of the business for gambling companies to function and offer an interesting service to their customers.

In 2022, SIS signed a contract with Santeda, a large offshore online-casino network.

The issue now is that it’s been reported that Santeda’s websites included sites that allegedly targeted UK customers despite not having a UK gambling licence. 

SIS apparently supplied Santeda with gambling-related data/services for two years, with the contract automatically renewing unless terminated.

The contract reportedly meant SIS received a percentage of the money generated from losing bets through Santeda’s brands. 

How could the three UK companies not know about this?

Industry sources have told the Guardian that the three UK bookmakers could not have known about the specific deal when SIS signed it, because of controls intended to prevent shareholders from accessing commercially sensitive information about competing businesses.

How have Entain, Evoke and Fred Done (Betfred) benefited from this?

Companies House filings indicate SIS paid at least £37m in dividends to its shareholders after the Santeda contract was signed, including £30m in 2023.

According to Guardian’s calculations, this corresponds approximately to:

• Ladbrokes/Entain: £8.5m
• William Hill/Evoke: more than £7m
• Fred Done: nearly £3m

However, it has not been established that those amounts came specifically from Santeda’s contract.  They are instead SIS shareholder dividends during the period.

Have the UK companies actually done anything wrong?

There is no evidence that these three UK bookmakers personally knew about or approved the Santeda contract. 

However, they’re in an awkward position as while they argue that stricter regulations and higher taxes can push more players toward the UK black market, they may have indirectly profited from the same illegal market they are warning about.