Facts on regulation
“Watch the match for free”: how illegal streams funnel fans into Europe’s black‑market betting
New UK data show that most illegal sports streams carry unlicensed gambling ads and other risks, sharpening questions for regulators about how onshore rules and enforcement should evolve to keep “free‑stream” viewers in the licensed system.
Intro “Free” streams as a gambling storefront
Illegal sports streaming in Great Britain has increased sharply in recent years, and many viewers arrive through simple messages such as “watch tonight’s match for free”.
A new analysis by monitoring firm Yield Sec, commissioned by the Campaign for Fairer Gambling (CFG), finds that once fans click through, they are not just watching sport: most of these streams are surrounded by prompts to bet with unlicensed operators and other potentially harmful content.
“Watch now – free.” For many fans, a link like this is the first step into illegal sports streams that also promote unlicensed gambling, and can expose them to malware, spyware and scam content.
Earlier coverage around regulation has shown how authorities in the Netherlands, Sweden, and Germany are already struggling to keep high‑value play on licensed sites as taxes rise and advertising rules tighten. The UK streaming data adds a concrete mechanism to that picture, showing how “free” access to sport can act as a storefront for black‑market gambling.
For regulators and licensed operators, the question is whether current regulatory tools — tax, limits and marketing rules — are aligned with this shift in distribution, or whether some players are being reached by offshore brands they did not initially set out to find.
Illegal streaming and gambling sites do not just push offshore betting offers; monitoring shows they can also expose users to malware, spyware and scams.
What the UK report actually found
Yield Sec’s study, Illegal Streaming of Sports Events in Great Britain, monitored live and on‑demand sports content across major platforms. Using automated scanning, the team identified illegal streams and checked each page for brand logos, pop‑ups, overlays and embedded links.
The report concludes that illegal streaming sites now act as “always‑open shop windows” for unlicensed gambling, visible on any connected device. It finds that a large majority of illegal streams carry gambling‑related prompts, with a small group of offshore operators appearing most frequently.
The report also notes that many viewers arrive because of generic “watch live” or “watch for free” messages and are not told up‑front that they are entering an environment with widespread unlicensed gambling promotion and other risks.
Alongside betting ads, the monitoring records links to malware, spyware and scams, making the initial click more consequential than many users may realise.
Campaign for Fairer Gambling (CFG) founder Derek Webb argues that Britain’s historic approach to offshore online gambling has helped illegal activity to scale, with streaming and unlicensed betting reinforcing each other. Yield Sec’s modelling suggests that unlicensed online gambling is now close to a double‑digit share of British online GGR, with the “free sport” funnel identified as an important contributor.
Webb’s comments reflect CFG’s policy stance; the underlying traffic and advertising patterns are based on Yield Sec’s independent monitoring data.
The Gambling Commission has not commented directly on the CFG / Yield Sec study, but it has begun publishing its own series of reports on the British black market. The first paper in that series identifies several groups of unlicensed‑site users, including “accidental tourists” who land on illegal operators through search results or advertising and may not realise they are unlicensed. That pattern aligns with the streaming report’s finding that many viewers arrive on illegal sites through generic “watch for free” messages rather than an explicit choice to gamble with offshore brands.
Separate reporting by Bloomberg, based on the same Yield Sec analysis, notes that the top 10 unauthorized sports sites in the UK generated around 1.6 billion views in the first half of 2025, roughly one third more than in the previous year. This media coverage underlines the scale and growth of the piracy trend highlighted in the Yield Sec / Campaign for Fairer Gambling study.
Methodology in brief
To separate licensed from unlicensed brands, the researchers cross‑checked operator names against national and international regulatory lists. Gambling‑related revenue from illegal streams was estimated by combining traffic and engagement data with standard industry assumptions, and the report is explicit about the uncertainties around exact figures.
The pattern, however, is consistent: illegal streaming has grown, most illegal streams carry gambling prompts, and a relatively small number of offshore operators capture much of the resulting play.
A simple search for “stream live football” returns pages of free links and an instant pop‑up match window – the first step many fans take into unlicensed streaming and, in some cases, illegal gambling offers. Photo: Michael Willis / Alamy.
Europe’s channelisation problem in this light
Earlier iGaming Review articles have documented this (see article 1, article 2, article 3 and article 4): how channelisation — the share of activity with licensed operators — is under pressure in several European markets.
In the Netherlands, recent estimates indicate that unlicensed GGR has overtaken the licensed sector, with around €617m attributed to illegal sites and about €600m to licensed brands. The Dutch regulator KSA has flagged rising offshore play and the interaction between higher taxes, ad bans and deposit caps.
In Sweden, the Gambling Authority reports overall channelisation of about 85%, but a lower rate for online casino, and industry voices there have raised concerns about continued leakage to unlicensed sites. In Germany, operators face high turnover‑based taxes and a complex licensing regime, and observers warn that regulated offers can be less competitive than offshore ones on odds and product range.
The UK streaming findings do not change those numbers, but they help explain one route by which players may leave the regulated environment. Rather than actively searching for “unlicensed casino”, many users may arrive on these sites through a promise of “free” football and only then encounter intensive gambling marketing and other risks.
UK versus Netherlands: same pressures, different starting points
Britain remains a mostly licensed market, but the streaming analysis suggests unlicensed operators may already be close to a 10% share of online GGR and are growing through piracy‑linked marketing. In the Netherlands, offshore brands are estimated to account for at least half of online GGR, and KSA has acknowledged that stricter rules have coincided with a weaker channelisation picture.
In both countries, policymakers are trying to balance consumer protection with high channelisation and stable tax receipts, while facing limits on cross‑border enforcement. The UK’s new data provide a detailed view of how one distribution channel works; the Dutch case shows what can happen if overall leakage grows and becomes harder to reverse.
Research timelines and evidence gaps
In a recent iGaming Review interview with Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor Mark Griffiths stressed that academic research often moves more slowly than product development and regulation, and called for closer collaboration with operators to generate timely, behaviour‑based evidence. The streaming report illustrates why: without ongoing digital monitoring, the role of “free” sports streams as a gambling storefront would be hard to see in headline participation or prevalence data alone.
Read alongside previous work in this series, the report suggests that understanding how players discover unlicensed offers – not just how many use them – will be critical if regulators want onshore rules and enforcement to work together.
Regulation, enforcement and the role of other laws
The streaming report also highlights an overlap between gambling policy and other legal frameworks. Many of the levers now being used or debated in Britain and the Netherlands — stake limits, bonus restrictions, advertising bans and higher duties — are regulatory measures aimed at licensed operators.
By contrast, the illegal streaming ecosystem described in the report involves copyright infringement, distribution of harmful software and cross‑border promotion of unlicensed gambling, which brings intellectual‑property enforcement and, in some cases, criminal‑law tools into play alongside gambling‑specific regulation.
For licensed firms, this distinction matters.
They can adjust to new rules and invest in safer‑gambling technology, but they cannot, by themselves, dismantle piracy networks or shut down access to offshore operators. If domestic rules tighten while action against illegal distribution channels lags, the gap between what regulated brands can offer and what users encounter on “free” streams may grow wider.
An open question for regulators and industry
The UK streaming study and recent reports from the Netherlands and Sweden do not provide a single answer on the impact of tighter regulation. Consumer‑protection measures have clear public‑health goals, and some strictly regulated markets still report high channelisation. At the same time, evidence from multiple countries suggests that when legal offers become less competitive and enforcement against illegal channels is limited, some players will find — or be drawn to — unlicensed sites.
The central challenge, highlighted by the “watch the match for free” funnel, is to ensure that rules, enforcement and technology work together. Without that alignment, there is a risk that fans who simply want to watch a game at no cost end up in an environment where unlicensed gambling, malware, and aggressive marketing are part of the package — and where the protections built into regulated markets no longer apply.
Further Reading
Campaign for Fairer Gambling / Yield Sec – “Illegal Streaming of Sports Events in Great Britain” (full report and supporting evidence)
EXPLORE ARTICLE SERIES
Interested in Regulation in Europe? Below are the links to previous articles.
“Eurpoean gambling regulation in focus” is a focused series examining how evolving gambling policies are reshaping legal markets, player behaviour, and black-market dynamics. Drawing on data from the UK, the Netherlands, and across the EU market, it highlights the real-world impact of regulatory ambition on channelisation and market stability.
Article series
REGULATION
European Gambling Regulation in Focus: A four part series
