Close Is Not the Same as Familiar
Africa’s diversity is frequently acknowledged in speeches, reports, and conference panels. Someone says, “Africa is not a country” or “Africa is not one-size-fits-all,” and everyone nods because, of course, it is true. Yet, many of the conversations that follow still refer to “the African player”, “the African market”, or “the African strategy”, as though 54 countries can be understood through one commercial lens.
We have become comfortable challenging international companies that enter Africa with products built for other markets, introducing mobile money, signing a local ambassador, and calling it localisation. We question whether they understand local payment systems, player behaviour, and the regulatory environments in which they operate. It is a valid criticism, but it leaves another assumption largely unexamined, that African gaming brands naturally understand other African markets.
They do not.
African companies can misread African markets just as easily as international entrants when familiarity is mistaken for knowledge. A company may understand how customers behave in Kenya, how regulation works in Ghana, or how to build a retail network in Nigeria. That experience is valuable, but it does not automatically translate across the continent.
One Continent, Different Commercial Realities
The differences become obvious when we look at what has happened across key markets in the last two years. Kenya offers a particularly clear example. For almost six decades, the country’s gambling industry operated under legislation introduced in 1966, long before mobile money, smartphones, online casinos, and crash games transformed the market. The Gambling Control Act 2025 replaced that framework, established the Gambling Regulatory Authority, and expanded regulatory oversight across licensing, online gambling, advertising, responsible gaming, and operator conduct.
The regulatory shift began before the Gambling Control Act 2025 came into force. In mid-2025, the Betting Control and Licensing Board imposed a 30-day suspension on gambling advertisements across all media platforms while new advertising standards were developed. The Communications Authority subsequently enforced the suspension against broadcasters, fining eight television stations KSh500,000 each and giving them, together with one media group, 12 hours to remove non-compliant gambling content or risk further sanctions, including possible licence revocation.
The responsible-gambling advertising guidelines introduced shortly afterwards prohibited celebrity and influencer endorsements, advertisements that glamorised gambling, and messages presenting gambling as a quick path to wealth. Operators were also required to obtain BCLB approval and Kenya Film Classification Board classification before an advertisement could be published or broadcast.
The effect was measurable. According to figures attributed to the Communications Authority of Kenya‘s Audience Measurement and Industry Trends Report, gambling advertising expenditure fell by 89%, from approximately KSh1.2 billion in the final quarter of FY2024/25 to KSh131 million in the first quarter of FY2025/26. Betting companies also recorded no print advertising expenditure during that quarter.
Read Also: Regulatory Clampdown Triggers 89% Drop in Kenya’s Advertising Spend on Gambling
An operator accustomed to a more flexible advertising environment cannot enter Kenya, give an existing campaign a Kenyan face, and launch it unchanged. The product, message, and people attached to it, channels used to promote it and capital set aside for market entry must all reflect the country’s current reality.
Taxation tells the same story, perhaps even more clearly. Ghana charges operators a 20% tax on gross gaming revenue. It abolished the 10% withholding tax on players’ winnings in 2025. Tanzania applies a heavier tax structure. Sportsbooks pay 25% tax on gross gaming revenue, players pay 12% tax on net winnings, and the 2026/27 budget proposed a 5% excise duty on the value of each stake.
Nigeria complicates the idea of a single national market even further. In late 2024, the Supreme Court nullified the National Lottery Act of 2005 and confirmed that lotteries and gaming conducted within a state fall under that state’s authority. The Federation of State Gaming Regulators of Nigeria (FSGRN) now provides a platform through which state regulators can coordinate standards and respond to shared concerns, but each state retains control over its own market.
South Africa adds another layer altogether. Its provincial gambling and racing authorities license and regulate operators within their respective jurisdictions, with national oversight provided by the National Gambling Board.
Localisation Is More Than a Visible Checklist
Localisation is often reduced to a visible checklist: accept mobile money, price bets in the local currency, sponsor a popular football property, and appoint a recognisable ambassador. While these measures matter, they do not prove that a company understands a market. A payment method tells an operator how a customer can deposit. It does not explain why that customer bets, which products they trust, when they choose to withdraw, how they respond to bonuses, or what they expect when a dispute occurs.
This is why “mobile-first Africa” offers little direction on its own. Mobile-money adoption, smartphone use, and trust in digital platforms vary by country. Two players may both bet on mobile yet use different payment rails and have different expectations around payout speed and reliability.
The same applies to football. Its popularity across the continent does not mean that every market shares the same league preferences, betting habits, responses to promotions, or attitude towards risk. The popularity of crash games in Kenya is no guarantee of the same demand in South Africa or Mauritius, where horse-racing has a long-established place in the gambling market. A local office does not always mean local decision-making. A local ambassador does not always mean local relevance.
African Identity Is Not a Substitute for Research
It is not that African companies are incapable of expanding successfully across the continent. In many cases, they possess advantages that international entrants have to work harder to acquire, such as regional networks, cultural awareness, and experience operating within emerging regulatory systems.
The belief that an African brand is automatically local everywhere in Africa can create its own form of overconfidence. It can discourage research because the market feels familiar. It can encourage companies to transfer campaigns, products, and management assumptions without asking whether they remain relevant.
The first step towards genuine localisation is accepting the limits of what a company knows. That requires country-level research before entry. It requires local professionals with authority. It requires regulatory expertise that reflects the jurisdiction itself and customer research that goes deeper than population size, internet penetration and enthusiasm for football.
Operators should be able to explain why a product belongs in a particular market, how it has been adapted, and which local insights shaped it. Regulators should publish accessible market information that allows companies to make informed decisions. Industry events should make room for country-specific evidence instead of repeating broad claims about Africa’s potential.
The brands most likely to succeed will not be those that claim to understand Africa as a whole. They will be the ones disciplined enough to learn each market separately and humble enough to recognise that being African does not make every African market familiar.
