Altenar files EU and UK antitrust complaints against Sportradar: report

Dig Deeper

The Backstory

Data rights move from commercial asset to legal battleground

Altenar’s complaints to European and British competition authorities mark an escalation in a dispute that has moved beyond a bilateral contract fight and into the regulatory arena. At issue is whether exclusive official data arrangements in elite sports are functioning as defensible commercial partnerships or as barriers that limit competition among sportsbook suppliers.

The current complaints target Sportradar’s access to live official sports data and betting odds tied to major leagues and competitions, including MLB, the NBA, the NHL and the ATP. Altenar argues those rights are being used to disadvantage rivals that need reliable live data to serve sportsbook clients, particularly in markets where in-play wagering has become central to operator economics. The company is seeking regulatory intervention in Europe and the U.K., including interim measures from the Competition and Markets Authority that would restore access while the matter is assessed.

The antitrust filings did not emerge in isolation. They build on a broader challenge that began in the U.S., where Altenar has already accused Sportradar of using exclusive data arrangements to block its market entry. That earlier case framed the conflict around refusal-to-deal claims under U.S. competition law, but the European and U.K. filings broaden the question: whether sports data incumbents can control essential inputs in a way that forecloses competing technology suppliers.

A U.S. lawsuit set the template for the fight

Altenar’s U.S. case laid the groundwork for the arguments now being taken to regulators. In April, the sportsbook technology provider filed a federal antitrust lawsuit in New Jersey alleging that Sportradar used exclusive deals with the NBA, NHL and MLB to prevent Altenar from entering the U.S. market. The case, detailed in an earlier look at the hurdles facing Altenar’s Sportradar lawsuit, is expected to face procedural and substantive obstacles.

One complication is that Altenar had already pursued arbitration in Switzerland and a separate complaint before the Maltese Competition Authority. That history gives Sportradar a likely defense that the dispute belongs in other forums or is essentially commercial rather than antitrust in nature. Sportradar also is expected to argue it ended or limited dealings with Altenar for ordinary business reasons and had no continuing legal duty to support a rival’s U.S. expansion.

Altenar’s position depends partly on claims that Sportradar verbally promised U.S. market access during contract renewal discussions in 2020. Such alleged assurances can be difficult to enforce if written agreements contain integration clauses that override informal commitments. That makes the legal path in New Jersey uncertain, even before the court reaches broader questions about exclusivity, market power and the treatment of official league data.

The European and U.K. complaints may be designed partly to avoid those limitations. Competition regulators can take a wider view of market structure than a U.S. court focused on contractual documents and Sherman Act standards. If regulators find that live official data has become an indispensable input for modern sports betting, the analysis could turn less on a broken partnership and more on whether access is being controlled in a way that harms downstream competition.

Sportradar’s scale is central to both its defense and the concern

Sportradar has spent the past year emphasizing that its value comes from scale, official rights, technology and product depth. At an April investor day, the company showcased support from major industry figures, including leaders from DraftKings, the NBA and the NHL. Analysts focused less on the event’s celebrity roster and more on the economics of a business built around data rights, live betting products and pricing power, as described in coverage of Sportradar’s investor presentation.

That presentation highlighted the same features now under scrutiny. Analysts noted Sportradar’s ability to leverage sports data rights into broader client relationships, higher take rates and increased product adoption. The company has invested in artificial intelligence to automate data collection and reduce costs, while also expanding the range of content it can sell to sportsbooks and other betting-adjacent customers.

For investors, those features support Sportradar’s growth story. For rivals, they underscore the challenge of competing with a supplier that controls key official data pipelines. The more sportsbooks rely on official data for live odds, integrity monitoring, streaming and bet settlement, the greater the stakes around access. A company that can bundle those products across leagues and geographies can become deeply embedded in operator infrastructure.

Sportradar’s pending acquisition of IMG Arena’s sports rights portfolio adds another layer. Analysts viewed the deal as broadening Sportradar’s global rights base and improving future revenue and cash flow. But consolidation of rights also can sharpen antitrust questions if rivals argue that the combined portfolio gives one supplier too much control over content that sportsbooks need to compete effectively.

Market pressure has already tested Sportradar’s position

The antitrust complaints arrive after a period in which Sportradar has faced scrutiny on several fronts. During its first-quarter earnings call, executives pushed back against allegations from short sellers that the company had provided services to illegal or unlicensed gambling operators. The issue weighed on the stock and prompted a public defense from Chief Executive Carsten Koerl, who said the company supports only licensed businesses and runs strict know-your-customer checks. The episode was covered in a report on Sportradar executives’ response to the allegations.

Sportradar also announced a $250 million share repurchase initiative, with Koerl saying he would buy $10 million in shares himself. Management sought to reassure investors that the impact of the allegations would be limited and that the company’s core betting and gaming content business remained strong.

That context matters because regulatory scrutiny could affect the same investor narrative management has been trying to protect. Sportradar’s growth depends on continued confidence from leagues, sportsbooks, regulators and public markets. Antitrust reviews in Europe and the U.K. would not automatically threaten that model, but they could create uncertainty around the exclusivity and pricing power that analysts have identified as central to the company’s long-term margins.

The company has denied wrongdoing in the Altenar matter, characterizing the new complaints as duplicative of existing commercial disputes and saying it complies with antitrust and other laws wherever it operates. Its defense is likely to stress that official data rights are obtained through legitimate contracts, that leagues have an interest in controlling and monetizing their data and that sportsbooks have alternatives depending on product type and jurisdiction.

Growth markets raise the stakes for access

Altenar’s own expansion strategy helps explain why the dispute has become urgent. The company has been pushing into regulated and newly regulating markets, including Brazil, where it agreed to power the Multibet sportsbook for RR Participações e Intermediações de Negócios. That deal, described in Altenar’s Brazil expansion through Multibet, positioned the supplier as a provider of flexible, compliant sportsbook technology in one of the industry’s fastest-growing markets.

Brazil’s regulatory opening has made it a priority for sportsbook suppliers, but competing there and elsewhere requires more than platform software. Operators increasingly expect live betting, localized odds, official data feeds and risk-management tools. If access to certain official data or odds products is limited, a smaller supplier may struggle to match the offering of competitors tied to dominant data vendors.

That is the commercial logic behind Altenar’s regulatory push. The company is not merely seeking damages over a past relationship; it is seeking access conditions that could shape its ability to compete across Europe, the U.K. and other regulated markets. For sportsbook operators, the outcome could affect vendor choice, pricing and resilience. If only a small number of suppliers can reliably access live official data, operators may have fewer alternatives and less leverage.

For sports leagues, the stakes cut both ways. Exclusive data deals create valuable revenue streams and support integrity controls. But if regulators conclude that exclusivity has gone too far, leagues and data companies could face pressure to adjust how official information is licensed and distributed.

Prediction markets widen the policy debate

The dispute also comes as Sportradar is moving into adjacent markets that blur the line between sports betting and financial-style event contracts. In June, the company announced a global agreement with Kalshi, giving the prediction market access to data streams from MLB, the NHL, Major League Soccer and the UFC. Analysts saw the deal as a potentially meaningful new revenue channel, as outlined in analysis of the Sportradar-Kalshi agreement.

The Kalshi arrangement showed how valuable official data can be beyond traditional sportsbooks. It also reinforced why control over data streams is becoming a regulatory issue. As sports outcomes are packaged for sportsbooks, prediction markets, market makers and customer acquisition products, the same data rights can support multiple revenue lines.

That evolution may strengthen Sportradar’s business case, but it also could intensify questions about access and market power. If live official data becomes infrastructure for several forms of regulated or quasi-regulated wagering, competition authorities may be more willing to examine whether exclusive control limits innovation or raises costs for downstream businesses.

The Altenar complaints therefore sit at the intersection of commercial contracting, sports rights monetization and gambling-market regulation. The immediate question is whether European and U.K. authorities decide to open formal proceedings or impose interim measures. The broader question is whether official sports data remains a proprietary advantage controlled through exclusive deals or becomes a more regulated input in the global betting economy.