Sports betting ‘micro-markets’: What does good practice look like?
Our Strategy Manager Greg Langridge outlines the Commission’s expectations for operator good practice in relation to sports betting ‘micro-markets’.
Posted 22 October 2026 by Greg Langridge
Introduction
This publication is part of a series centred around the Fair and Open licensing objective (see blogs on identity verification and commercial restrictions). This piece is most relevant for operators who offer betting markets on sports micro-events (for example; saves, shots on target and assists in football), as well as third-party data providers whose data is used by operators to offer and settle these betting markets.
Betting markets on sports micro-events have become a core part of the selection of products consumers expect bookmakers to offer today, particularly as bet builders and accumulators have become increasingly popular. The issues discussed below are specifically relevant to Licence Condition 7.1 - ‘Fair and transparent terms and practices’.
Over a number of years, we have seen many complaints and disputes relating to these products, with a handful of consistent themes emerging through the data, some of which have been highlighted by Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) providers. Various themes are highlighted consistently through these complaints and disputes, specifically the lack of a ‘single source of truth’ when it comes to match facts and data, and the lack of a mechanism for consumers to directly challenge data providers’ decisions.
We understand that sports data providers seek to ensure consistency and standardisation in how they each collect their data, including for micro-events. There is however a degree of unavoidable subjectivity in how some of the data is generated for these markets, for example, it is impossible to definitively know whether a shot or a pass was intentional. Given this, and the wide availability of different sources of information about sports matches, it’s clear how these markets can sometimes give rise to disputed data decisions and subsequently bet outcomes.
General principles
Operators offering betting on sports micro-events should follow a basic set of overarching principles to ensure the products they are offering are fair and transparent for consumers. Firstly, data used to settle bets should be determined independently and supported by appropriate governance. Consumers should have clear information about how markets are defined and settled before placing a bet, and when data decisions and affected bet outcomes change, information should be made available to those affected in a proportionate manner.
Ultimately, we believe it is in the interests of all parties to ensure that there is sufficient confidence in the fairness of these products, and that information about how they work is always openly available to the consumer. It is important that the processes by which data decisions and bet settlement outcomes are made are accurate, fair and perceived to be fair by consumers.
Below we explore three topics related to these betting markets, our Fair and Open requirements and what good practice looks like.
Communication between operators and data providers
Direct and regular communication between operators and sports data providers is a practical necessity for the smooth operation of betting markets on sports micro-events. For any technical issues or incidents to be flagged and resolved as soon as possible, these communication channels must exist. The Commission sees no evidence of widespread issues leading to unfair outcomes for consumers in relation to these arrangements. Nonetheless, we understand why some consumers may want greater assurances on data independence, fairness and transparency in how betting markets are settled. Given the close commercial relationships that exist between many operators and data providers, there are steps that could be taken to provide greater assurances to consumers, as examples of good practice.
Good practice
Operators should ensure that communications with data providers are conducted in a manner that preserves the independence of sports data. Queries should be raised by operators to seek clarification or correction where issues are suspected but the outcome of any data event must be determined by the data provider without external influence. Good practice in this area would be to establish documented procedures describing when event queries may be raised, who is authorised to raise them, and how potential conflicts of interest are managed. Data providers should retain independent responsibility for determining event outcomes in accordance with their established methodologies and procedures. Maintaining an audit trail demonstrating how settlement decisions were reached when queries have been raised would be another example of good practice in this area.
Event definitions and data providers
Disputes can sometimes arise not because the underlying sports data is incorrect, but because consumers have different assumptions about what counts as an assist, a save or a shot on target (using football as an example). Many operators already openly publish the event definitions they use and the data providers they settle with, but practice across industry is inconsistent.
Good practice
We would encourage operators to ensure that, before a consumer places a bet, key information is provided transparently and prominently to them, including for example: the event definitions being applied, the provider responsible for the data used to settle bets, whether the market may be subject to later correction(s) and any time limits for data reviews and finalisation. A first step towards this is to openly signpost event definitions alongside markets or in easily accessible Terms and Conditions, as well as identifying the primary data source used for settlement. Avoiding over-reliance on generic terms where specific definitions exist would also improve consumer understanding of the exact parameters of each micro-event.
Reversed decisions on data
Sports data providers routinely review incidents after an initial ruling has been made, with targets for data correction and finalisation standard practice across providers. Evidence from complaints and disputes shows that consumers can sometimes be blindsided by these reversals, discovering that their bet has changed from a win to a loss with little or no explanation (unless they have actively contacted consumer support). Corrections and reviews of decisions are inevitable parts of advanced sports data, but more information could be made available to consumers when these reversals occur.
Good practice
Good practice in this area would be for operators to routinely provide affected consumers with a clear explanation for the reason(s) behind any data changes or reversals (as soon as is reasonably practicable), whilst signposting support channels. Additionally, good practice would be for operators to provide a final cut-off point after which no further corrections to data (and bet outcomes) will be made. This would go some way in providing clarity and certainty for all parties involved. Communications to consumers could specify which event ruling has changed, the finalised decision, how this affects their bet outcome(s), and where they can find further information. Operators should ensure that sufficient information is accessible to staff to explain revised settlements, whether this is through automated notifications, direct messages to consumers or traditional support channels. We recognise that not every correction can realistically generate a bespoke explanation, but making further information available for major settlement changes (which affect highly popular markets) would be an example of good practice.
Conclusion
We have outlined the overarching principles that should guide how these betting markets operate, as well as what good practice looks like for three main areas. Ultimately, the Commission does not see widespread non-compliance or serious issues around fairness when it comes to betting markets. Nonetheless, improvements could be made across industry to provide greater assurances to consumers on transparency, fairness and data integrity.
We will continue to monitor these betting markets and listen to consumers, ADR service providers and industry as we monitor these products and how they relate to the Fair and Open licensing objective.