South Africa’s NGB Goes to Market on Illegal Gambling Crackdown as R50bn a Year Flows Offshore

Key Points

• South Africa’s National Gambling Board has launched an Expression of Interest to appoint a specialist service provider to monitor, block and track illegal online gambling websites targeting South African consumers.
• Illegal offshore operators are estimated to account for 62% of South Africa’s online betting market, pulling more than R50 billion in gross gambling revenue out of the country each year, per a 2024 Yield Sec report commissioned by SABA.
• SABA has welcomed the NGB’s move but says website blocking on its own falls short; the association is pushing for National Gambling Act amendments, payment disruption, advertising controls and a dedicated national enforcement unit.

Warnings were not enough. The National Gambling Board (NGB) is no longer just talking but has made an official Expression of Interest, which requires a specialist service provider to conduct surveillance and reporting on illegal gambling sites that target South African customers.

The EOI has been issued as of 30 June 2026. The virtual briefing for interested bidders will be held on 15 July 2026 at 11:00 CAT, while the deadline for submissions will be on 7 August 2026 with reference number 01/2026_ED.

What the NGB Is Actually Asking a Provider to Do?

A website blacklist is the least of it. The winning provider must monitor internet traffic from illegal gambling websites targeting South Africans, build profiles on each operator covering country of origin, licence status and ownership structure, and funnel that intelligence directly to law enforcement to back prosecutions.

Blocked sites cannot simply be flagged and forgotten. When an operator resurfaces under a different domain, the provider must catch it and shut it down again. The procurement document is plain about the objective: “The NGB wishes to find a service provider who will block these websites and provide data intelligence on these operators for further enforcement actions.”

Bidders must also measure their proposed solution against comparable website-blocking frameworks in other countries and set out whether their model has the potential to generate revenue that sustains the service over time.

The Scale of the Problem the NGB Is Trying to Contain

Sixty-two per cent. That single figure, drawn from a 2024 Yield Sec report commissioned by the South African Bookmakers Association (SABA), is the estimated share of South Africa’s online betting market now held by illegal offshore operators. The same research calculates that more than R50 billion in gross gambling revenue is pulled offshore each year, with an estimated 16 million South Africans having used these platforms over the past 12 months.

South Africans wagered R1.5 trillion across all gambling formats in 2024/25, compared to R1.14 trillion the year prior. Licensed operators collected gross gambling revenue of R75 billion, a 26.2% rise year-on-year. Measured against those figures, the offshore drain is not a secondary concern; it sits at the centre of the online market.

The regulator does not dress it up in its own procurement document: “South Africa is struggling to enforce against illegal interactive gambling offering gambling activities to South Africans without a licence.”

The Legal Gap Behind the Procurement

The laws exist. Section 11 of the National Gambling Act bans all interactive gambling unless authorised under national legislation, and Section 8 prohibits unlicensed gambling outright. No law has since been passed to legalise interactive gambling, which leaves every offshore casino platform operating in South Africa in breach of both provisions simultaneously.

Established as a Schedule 3A public entity under the National Gambling Act of 2004, the NGB carries a mandate under Sections 33, 34, 65 and 66 to assist provincial licensing authorities in detecting and prosecuting unlicensed activity. The mandate was never the question. What has lagged is the enforcement infrastructure needed to act on it.

Curaçao, the Philippines, Gibraltar and Malta are the jurisdictions the NGB has identified as the main sources of illegal operators targeting South Africans. The board has already contacted regulators in Curaçao, Gibraltar and Malta asking them to rein in their licensees, and has served cease and desist letters to specific operators. None of that has closed the gap.

SABA: “Prohibition Without Enforcement”

The South African Bookmakers Association has welcomed the NGB’s move, though it has not held back on where the limits lie. SABA CEO Sean Coleman said: “We fully support the NGB’s heightened enforcement actions that include a technological component, High Court forfeiture operations, and the coordinated legislative push to eradicate these illicit networks.”

Coleman pressed further. On what the timing signals: “By declaring war on illegal, unregulated platforms, particularly ahead of or during high-volume sporting periods like the 2026 World Cup, the NGB is taking an essential step toward safeguarding vulnerable citizens and protecting the integrity of the domestic economy.”

SABA’s formal position describes the current framework as “prohibition without enforcement.” Six interventions sit at the centre of what the association is calling for: amending the National Gambling Act to sharpen enforcement powers against offshore operators; building a statutory website-blocking framework under the Electronic Communications Act with judicial oversight; cutting off payments through banks and cryptocurrency platforms; penalising local affiliates and marketing intermediaries who knowingly assist illegal operators; restricting advertising by unlicensed operators; and creating a centralised national enforcement unit.

Australia is the international reference SABA keeps returning to. After amending its Interactive Gambling Act in 2017, Australia’s communications regulator blocked more than 1,300 illegal gambling and affiliate websites, and more than 220 offshore operators pulled out of the market rather than face sustained enforcement action.

The 2026 Enforcement Trail That Led Here

The EOI did not appear in isolation. Earlier this year, the NGB launched its Verified Gambling Operators portal and issued consumer warnings ahead of the FIFA World Cup, flagging illegal online gambling platforms and counterfeit betting applications circulating in the market.

On 24 June 2026, NGB chief executive Lungile Dukwana went before Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Trade, Industry and Competition. He told the committee that the NGB had raised several policy questions with the National Gambling Policy Council, covering the regulation of online gambling, betting exchanges and historical loss tracing.

Dukwana named the revenue flowing to offshore platforms as one of the regulator’s core concerns, pointing out that those operators pay no local gambling taxes or levies and are bound by none of the consumer protection requirements that licensed operators must meet. He also raised the growing volume of gambling advertising across media channels, confirming that talks are underway on tighter controls, including limits on when gambling advertisements can be broadcast and steps to tackle misleading promotional material.

Research presented to the committee pointed to gambling with borrowed money and reported instances of social grant funds being used for betting. Separate data on household spending found that gambling now accounts for 1.6% of all household expenditure in South Africa, placing it 12th across all spending categories.

The Internet Service Providers’ Association has introduced a note of caution into the wider debate. ISPA supports action against illegal operators but has warned that any website blocking regime must rest on a clear statutory framework, judicial oversight and transparent processes; it describes blocking as a last resort rather than a first move.

Expert Analysis

South Africa’s enforcement direction is shifting, but the distance between regulatory intent and legal architecture is still considerable. The NGB’s EOI is a procurement notice, not a legislative instrument. Whatever technology the winning provider brings will only reach as far as the legal authority sitting behind it, and that authority remains contested in places. The harder question is not whether South Africa can find someone to block websites; it is whether the National Gambling Act and the Electronic Communications Act will be amended fast enough to give that provider a mandate with real teeth. SABA’s six-point legislative agenda, read alongside Australia’s combined model of blocking, payment disruption and coordinated enforcement, shows what a serious response actually requires. A virtual briefing and a submission deadline are a beginning. What matters comes after 7 August.