MGA reviews operators’ suspicious sports-betting reporting procedures

Malta's Gaming Authority (MGA) has published the findings of a thematic review of how licensed operators identify, assess and manage potential risks to the integrity of sports betting, the regulator said. The review formed part of the MGA's risk-based supervisory approach and examined operators that had submitted few or no suspicious-betting reports since the reporting obligations were introduced.

The checks took place between Q2 and Q4 2025 on a sample of B2B and B2C operators selected on a risk basis. Through meetings and supervisory checks, the MGA examined monitoring systems, internal procedures, reporting arrangements and safeguards against possible manipulation.

According to the authority, a low number of reports is not necessarily a sign of inadequate monitoring. In several cases it reflected preventive risk-management measures such as restrictive stake limits, a narrower betting offer and the exclusion of events considered most exposed to manipulation, in particular certain youth competitions.

The review also found heavy reliance on external betting-monitoring bodies. In those cases internal checks usually begin only from partners' alerts, and without alerts suspicious activity is less likely to be identified. Some operators licensed in multiple jurisdictions were also unaware that suspicious activity recorded on the same market by players served under the MGA licence must also be reported in Malta; the authority clarified that such activity must be communicated under Maltese rules.

The MGA identified good practices including the use of real-time monitoring systems, effective cooperation between risk-management and compliance functions, and safeguards preventing athletes and registered members from betting on events in which they are involved. Areas for improvement include clear documentation of internal procedures and reporting responsibilities, including the role of the compliance officer. The authority also asks operators to complement automated systems with adequate staff checks and to ensure a uniform interpretation of reporting obligations.

None of the operators in the sample reported having formal agreements or memoranda of understanding with sports federations; contacts usually run through monitoring partners, the MGA or other regulators. The authority does not require such agreements, though it considers them useful for formalising communication channels and supporting the timely exchange of information.

During the review, operators asked for more precise guidance on what constitutes suspicious activity. The authority preferred to keep an open approach, because rigid thresholds could discourage the submission of information that still merits checking. The publication is intended to help operators assess and improve their own measures; the MGA said it will continue to monitor progress through its supervisory activity and will take the findings into account in setting future guidance and supervisory priorities.