The South African Bookmakers’ Association (SABA) has issued a strong response to the National Gambling Board’s (NGB) recent position on remote gambling servers. They dispute both its legal interpretation and technical conclusions.
NGB’s Directive on Remote Gambling Servers
Last month, the NGB released a directive stating that Remote Gambling Servers (RGS) fall outside South Africa’s legal framework. As a result, provincial licensing authorities were instructed to prohibit their use and align operations with national standards.
Supported by the National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications (NRCS), the directive also indicated that certifications for RGS would no longer be renewed. This move would effectively exclude them from licensed gambling operations in the country.
SABA Rejects Legal Interpretation
In a statement dated March 9, SABA strongly opposed the NGB’s claims. They argued that the regulator has misapplied the National Gambling Act of 2004.
According to SABA, licensed bookmakers do not offer interactive games—which the Act prohibits—but instead provide fixed-odds betting, which the Act explicitly permits. In addition, the association emphasized that some stakeholders unfairly portray bookmakers as operating outside the law.
Key Legal Distinction: Wagers vs. Gambling Games
SABA’s argument centers on the legal definition of gambling activities under the National Gambling Act. While the NGB claims that RGS facilitate interactive games (which are restricted under Section 11), SABA points to Section 6(2). This section states that a bookmaker’s wager does not constitute a gambling game.
This distinction is critical to SABA’s position. If wagers do not qualify as gambling games, they cannot be classified as interactive games. Therefore, SABA argues that bookmakers who use remote servers do not violate the law.
“There is accordingly no legal basis for the contention that bookmakers… are making interactive games available… or that their operations are unlawful,” SABA stated.
Dispute Over Technical Standards
The NGB also argued that South African National Standard SANS 1718-4:2018 applies only to Wagering and Record Keeping Systems (WRS), not to Remote Gambling Servers. Based on this, the regulator suggested that RGS cannot be tested or certified under current standards.
SABA disputes this interpretation, stating that modern sportsbook platforms already rely on remote server infrastructure to manage betting logic and outcomes. In addition, these systems are certified under SANS 1718-4:2018 and operate within legal boundaries.
From a technical standpoint, SABA argues that remote servers used in sportsbook systems serve a similar function to RGS within distributed architectures. As such, the presence of a remote server does not determine legality. Rather, the nature of the betting activity does.
Call for Clarity and Fair Regulation
SABA concluded its statement by urging greater clarity and accuracy in regulatory communications. The association stressed the importance of informing the public correctly. They also emphasized the need to ensure that licensed bookmakers are not wrongly portrayed as acting unlawfully.
“The betting public should be placed in an informed position… and legitimate operations… should not unjustifiably be portrayed as being in defiance of the law,” the statement read.
