jili tutorial

Entain “dissapointed” with reports of SIS’ unlicensed activity

By jili tutorial · October 6, 2026

Background: The SIS–Santeda Partnership and Its Fallout

The recent revelation that racing data and live feed provider SIS (Sports Information Services) entered into a commercial agreement with Santeda, an operator not licensed in the United Kingdom, has sparked serious concern from one of its largest shareholders, Entain. The news, based on documents obtained from a data leak originating from the Curaçao gambling authority, indicates that the partnership began in 2022 and may have continued into this year. This article breaks down the key parties, the allegations, the responses, and the broader implications for the UK gambling industry.

Understanding the Ownership and Governance Structure

Who Owns SIS?

SIS is owned by a consortium of major UK gambling operators, including:

Despite this ownership, SIS operates with significant independence. Its board retains full control over commercial decisions, including media rights and customer agreements. This governance structure means that shareholders are not consulted on individual contracts, and they are also prohibited from influencing such deals due to competition law restrictions.

The Role of Shareholders as Clients

In addition to being shareholders, these operators are also major customers of SIS. They rely on SIS’s racing feeds and data for their own sportsbook offerings. This dual relationship creates a conflict of interest: while they benefit financially from SIS’s success, they also face reputational risk if SIS engages with unlicensed entities.

The Allegations: What the Leaked Documents Show

The leaked Curaçao gambling authority documents reveal that SIS entered into a commercial arrangement with Santeda, a bookmaker that operates without a UK Gambling Commission license. The agreement was reportedly signed in 2022, and may have remained active into the current year. Santeda’s licensing status raises red flags because it allows customers in the UK to place bets via unregulated channels, directly undermining the country’s strict gambling laws.

Neither Betfred nor Entain were aware of this deal before the leak, according to SBC News sources.

Entain’s Response: “Surprised and Disappointed”

Entain, which has long positioned itself as a champion of regulated gambling, issued a strongly worded statement. The company said it was “surprised and disappointed” to learn of the SIS–Santeda relationship and has taken the matter directly to the SIS Board.

Entain clarified its limited role, stating:

“As a minority shareholder and to ensure compliance with competition law, we are 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 company reinforced its stance on illegal gambling:

“Entain’s position on illegal gambling is clear and unchanged: we support robust enforcement against unlicensed operators.”

This response aligns with Entain’s broader campaign against the black market. The operator has previously appealed to UK regulators and football governing bodies about the visibility and accessibility of unlicensed platforms within the UK market.

SIS’s Defense: Terms and Conditions as Safeguards

In response to the allegations, SIS issued a statement emphasizing its contractual safeguards:

“SIS has contracts with operators around the world operating under official regulatory and licensing environments. All customers of SIS, whether international or domestic, agree that they will only offer SIS products where it is legal to do so and where they have the necessary regulatory licences. Customers commit that they will comply with all such laws and licences at all times.”

SIS further noted that it takes corrective action—including suspension or termination of contracts—if it becomes aware of non-compliance. However, the company declined to comment on individual confidential arrangements, directing queries to its publicly available terms and conditions at www.sis.tv/legal.

Industry Implications: A Test for Self-Regulation

This incident highlights a recurring challenge in the gambling supply chain: how far does a B2B provider’s responsibility extend when its products end up in unlicensed hands? SIS’s reliance on contractual clauses rather than active monitoring may be insufficient in the eyes of large operators and regulators.

For the UK Gambling Commission, the case reinforces the need for stricter due diligence requirements on suppliers. For minority shareholders like Entain and Evoke, it underscores the risk of silent investment in companies that may inadvertently (or knowingly) service the black market.

What’s Next?

SBC News has reached out to Evoke and The Tote for comment, but no responses have been published as of this writing. Given the regulatory scrutiny and the reputational stakes, further investigations and possibly board-level actions at SIS are likely. Meanwhile, Entain’s raised concerns may prompt SIS to review its customer vetting processes—or risk losing the trust (and business) of its UK-based shareholders and clients.