SABA Questions NWGB’s Authority to License Betmatch’s Betting Exchange
The South African Bookmakers’ Association (SABA) has called on the North West Gambling Board (NWGB) to explain the legal basis for licensing betting exchanges, following a dispute with Betmatch over the scope of its authorisation.
In a statement published on 6 October 2026 and signed by CEO Sean Coleman, SABA acknowledged that Betmatch’s operator, ZAR Prive (Pty) Ltd, holds a bookmaker licence covering betting exchange activity. Its objection concerns whether legislation empowered NWGB to grant that authorisation.
“SABA does not dispute that Betmatch, operated by ZAR Prive (Pty) Ltd, holds a “Bookmaker (Bet Exchange)” licence issued by the North West Gambling Board. The issue is not whether the licence exists. The issue is whether the North West Gambling Board had the statutory authority to issue a “Bookmaker (Bet Exchange)” licence,” SABA stated.
The association says it has requested the records, legal opinions and evaluations behind NWGB’s exchange licensing framework. It wants the board to identify the legislative provisions supporting its decision. SABA has continued to argue that a regulator’s rules and licence conditions cannot supply powers absent from legislation.
“In South African law, bodies created by the legislature may exercise only those powers granted to them by that legislature. Rules, licence conditions and administrative decisions cannot create new powers that Parliament or a provincial legislature did not confer.
SABA has requested the records, legal opinions, evaluations and statutory basis relied upon by the North West Gambling Board when introducing its betting exchange licensing framework. Those records should identify precisely which legislative provisions authorised the licensing of a P2P betting exchange under a bookmaker licence.”
The disagreement follows SABA’s position paper of 27 July 2026, which examined prediction markets and peer-to-peer betting exchanges. That paper argued that both products enable participants to take opposing positions on future outcomes, while platforms facilitate transactions and earn fees.
SABA’s concern extends to the distinction between facilitating bets and accepting them. In its July paper, it maintained that an operator matching customers’ wagers does not fit comfortably within existing bookmaker or totalisator definitions because it is not itself a party to the bet.
Read Also: SABA Issues Statement on Unregulated Prediction Markets and Betting Exchanges in South Africa
Betmatch has defended its licence and proposed a regulatory approach that would allow domestic exchanges to operate under supervision. In a report published by ITWeb on 28 September, the company maintained that its NWGB authorisation permits betting on uncertain future events, including political outcomes.
“The demand clearly exists. The only question is whether it is met by operators subject to South African law or by offshore platforms accountable to no one here,” said Betmatch CEO Nick French. “Peer-to-peer betting on a contingency is precisely what a Bookmaker Exchange licence authorises, and we already offer markets of this kind lawfully and under supervision on our platform.”
The operator argues that restricting licensed domestic exchanges would leave offshore platforms serving South African customers. According to the report, Betmatch submitted draft prediction market rules to NWGB covering approval of individual betting contracts, prohibited subjects, integrity monitoring and protection of customer funds. Its proposals also include position limits and regulatory control over which events may be offered.
Betmatch has additionally called for action against unlicensed offshore competitors through payment restrictions, geoblocking and the removal of gambling applications and advertisements targeting South Africans. SABA acknowledged their shared opposition to illegal offshore operators but maintained that these concerns do not establish NWGB’s authority to license a betting exchange. “The existence of unlawful offshore competitors cannot supply statutory authority where none exists,” SABA stated.
