• The Netherlands Gambling Authority says more athletes were found to have bet on their own sports with licensed operators during 2025.
• The regulator recorded four cases of athletes betting on competitions they were involved in, a pattern not seen in the prior year’s report.
• Nine licensed sportsbooks filed 12 reports of suspected match fixing to the Sports Betting Intelligence Unit covering 1 January to 31 December 2025.
• Football generated the most alerts, followed by tennis and combat sports, with three cases linked to competitions staged in the Netherlands.
• The KSA has issued updated integrity guidance for operators while sports bodies have increased athlete education on betting rules and risks.

The Netherlands Gambling Authority, known as the KSA, has reported an increase in cases where professional athletes placed bets on their own sports through licensed operators during 2025, although the overall scale remains small compared with some other jurisdictions.

The issue was highlighted in the regulator’s 2025 trend analysis report produced by its Sports Betting Intelligence Unit, which assesses suspicious betting signals and uses them as a risk indicator within broader oversight of match fixing. The review covers reports submitted by licensed sportsbooks between 1 January and 31 December 2025.

Across the year, nine licensed sportsbooks filed 12 alerts relating to possible match fixing. Operators submitted the reports after detecting unusual activity on their platforms. Football accounted for the largest share with six cases, followed by five linked to tennis and one linked to combat sports. The regulator said three of the cases related to competitions taking place in the Netherlands.

A key change from the prior reporting period was the emergence of athletes betting on competitions they were participating in professionally. The KSA detected four such bets in 2025, whereas this category did not feature in the previous year’s report. In each case, the athlete placed bets connected to their own match, league, or competition. This conduct is prohibited because it creates a clear conflict of interest and raises the possibility that an athlete could act on insider knowledge. When operators identified the bets, they either cancelled the wagers or closed the accounts.

Beyond direct athlete involvement, the regulator identified seven cases involving unusual wagering patterns. These included repeated high-value bets on a single event, abrupt shifts in customer behaviour, and large stakes directed at lower-profile competitions. The report also noted instances where bets were placed at unusual moments during live matches, which can indicate potential access to inside information about developments during play.

Three of the unusual betting cases were connected to the same sporting event. Operators responded with measures that included cancelling bets, limiting accounts, or removing specific markets from their offering. The regulator also recorded one alert concerning a potentially high-risk match that originated from an international monitoring signal, although the sportsbook involved reported that its internal review did not identify irregular customer activity.

Despite the increase in the athlete betting category, the overall number of alerts was broadly stable year on year. The regulator received 13 reports of potential match manipulation in 2024. The number of operators submitting alerts also remained similar, with nine reporting incidents in 2025 compared with eight in 2024, though the mix of reporting operators changed, with four different companies contributing reports compared with the previous year.

Alongside the trend analysis, the KSA has published updated integrity guidance for betting operators, outlining expectations around market design, risk analysis, and mandatory reporting of suspicious activity. Sports organisations have also expanded education efforts aimed at professional athletes, focusing on gambling risks and the rules that prohibit betting on work-related events. The regulator said it is continuing to assess sportsbooks’ risk controls and the steps they are taking to keep betting markets safe.

The emergence of athletes betting on their own competitions is a red flag, even when volumes are low. It is one of the clearest integrity breaches because it creates an unavoidable conflict of interest and can undermine confidence in both the sport and the regulated betting market. Even a small number of cases can generate outsized reputational damage if they are publicised or linked to controversial outcomes.

What stands out in the Dutch approach is the reliance on operator intelligence and structured reporting through a specialist unit. That model only works if detection tools are tuned to identify prohibited participants and if there is consistent escalation when alerts appear. The fact that operators cancelled bets or closed accounts is a necessary response, but it is not the end of the story. The broader deterrent effect depends on effective information sharing with sports bodies and on credible consequences for repeated or deliberate breaches.

The wider pattern of unusual betting behaviours, including timing anomalies in live betting, points to a persistent risk that sits beyond individual athlete conduct. Market design matters here. Some markets are inherently easier to exploit, especially in lower-profile competitions with weaker oversight. Regulators will increasingly expect operators to demonstrate that integrity risk is built into product decisions, not handled after the fact through reactive account actions.