India ban drives Flutter Entertainment loss
Despite adverse sporting outcomes, which management acknowledged in an 11 November earnings call, FanDuel parent Flutter Entertainment grew revenues in the third quarter. “I am pleased to report a good third quarter,” CEO Peter Jackson said.
Flutter reported US$3.8 billion in revenue across all its platforms, a 17% increase from 2024. This was led by 44% increases in United States igaming revenue and a 31% gain in international igaming winnings. Sports betting win was down.
Revenues overall were up 17% but cash flow dropped US$280 million. Flutter also posted a US$789 million loss, driven by adverse sports outcomes and mainly by an impairment charge related to the cessation of operations in India. The subcontinent recently outlawed online wagering.
During the earnings call, Chief Financial Officer Rob Coldrake broke the red ink down into a US$556 million write-off of Indian operations, a US$205 million exit fee with Boyd Gaming and general amortization. The loss in the third quarter of 2024 was US$114 million.
In the United States, FanDuel’s average monthly players rose 8%. The growth in sports betting was 5%, while that for igaming was 30%. Jackson credited the increase partly on 500 additional online slot titles, including new iterations of Samurai, Huff ’n Puff and Willie Wonka.
David McKee is an award-winning journalist who has three decades of experience covering the gaming industry.
Verticals:
Sectors:
Topics:
Dig Deeper
Related stories
The Backstory
How the India shock rippled through Flutter’s books
Flutter Entertainment’s latest results laid bare how a sudden policy turn in India can reshape a multinational balance sheet in a single quarter. Management said the company’s headline loss was driven largely by an impairment tied to shutting down operations in the country after a new prohibition on online wagering. That charge follows a year in which the FanDuel owner had been rebuilding momentum. Flutter swung from a loss to a profit in the fourth quarter and then reported another profit in the first quarter of 2025, even as U.S. sports outcomes turned customer friendly and pinched margins. The India exit upended that trajectory.
In the recent quarter, Flutter said cash flow fell and it posted a net loss after recording a write-down to reflect the cessation of Indian operations. Management attributed the red ink to adverse sports results and a noncash impairment after the government moved to outlaw online wagering nationwide. The company had previously touted international growth as a counterweight to softer patches in the U.S., highlighting product gains and market share wins in the U.K. and Italy and calling out “strong performances” in India among other markets. That cushion is now thinner, and the one-off damage is only part of the story. The more consequential question is whether India’s policy shift becomes permanent law or is narrowed in courts, which would determine whether Flutter and peers can rebuild a presence in one of the world’s largest digital markets.
A fast escalation from warnings to a nationwide ban
New Delhi’s posture toward online betting hardened quickly. A draft law reviewed by Reuters, the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill 2025, would prohibit any “online money games,” defined as those where users deposit cash in expectation of rewards, while citing “addictive algorithms” and compulsive behavior. The measure prescribes fines and up to three years in jail for violations. As officials signaled a clampdown, global operators began bracing for impact. The policy push threatened a sector that had drawn billions in foreign investment and rode the surge in smartphone use and fantasy sports during marquee cricket tournaments. Complete iGaming detailed the proposed law in a report on India’s plans to ban online money games amid fears of addiction, noting that top platforms rapidly shifted to free-to-play formats or paused key offerings.
The bill’s breadth is what rattled operators. India has long maintained tight controls on games of chance, with varied state-level rules and a yearslong debate over whether rummy, poker and fantasy contests constitute skill or chance. The 2025 proposal would override that gray zone. It also arrived after a steady drumbeat of public health concerns, endorsements by celebrity athletes and a marketing blitz that normalized micro-stakes play. Against that backdrop, companies that treated India as a medium-term growth pillar suddenly faced a market that could be closed off for years.
Courts become the next battleground
The regulatory pivot is not happening in a vacuum. Public pressure has mounted. India’s Supreme Court recently heard a petition to ban all online sports betting apps, with a bench acknowledging concerns but also questioning enforcement limits. The hearing underscored how social harms, including claims about addiction and suicides, have moved to the center of the policy debate. Even so, justices signaled the difficulty of using law alone to curb behavior and referred the case to top federal legal officers, suggesting the executive branch would set the pace.
On the industry’s side, the first direct legal counterpunch arrived quickly. Indian platform A23 filed the first challenge to the ban in the Karnataka High Court, arguing that the prohibition criminalizes legitimate businesses and misclassifies games of skill. The suit could set precedent for whether certain formats are carved out or whether the ban stands intact. Major fantasy operators have paused money contests but have not yet joined the litigation. For global firms like Flutter, the court timeline matters. A swift ruling that narrows the ban could allow a return in some form. A protracted fight or a broad affirmation of the law would force companies to redeploy capital toward markets with clearer rules.
Earnings whiplash meets strategy reset
Flutter’s recent quarters illustrate how regulation, sports variance and product mix can collide. The company told investors it had rebuilt profitability by tightening costs and leaning into higher-margin features such as parlay products. It also emphasized international momentum to offset U.S. swings, pointing to market share gains and deals meant to deepen local scale. Management cited acquisitions, including an Italian expansion and an impending Brazil transaction, in its first-quarter communication as part of a longer runway for global growth.
The India shock complicates that plan. In its fourth-quarter update, Flutter touted “strong performances” in India. Within weeks, the operating environment was upended, leading to the impairment now flowing through results. That underscores a core risk for cross-border gaming platforms: political shifts can erase years of customer acquisition overnight. While Flutter still sees a large regulated addressable market by decade’s end, the mix is changing. The company has already bifurcated guidance, lifting expectations outside the U.S. while trimming them stateside due to softer results in key sports, then contending with an India-specific hit that was not in prior baselines.
The working thesis remains that product breadth, tech scale and local brands can smooth out volatility. That may hold in mature markets like the U.K., Italy or select U.S. states. But in emerging jurisdictions, outsized growth often comes with policy risk that no amount of product innovation can hedge. Flutter’s exit costs and write-downs crystallize that trade-off.
Why the stakes stretch beyond one quarter
For investors, the immediate questions are how much earnings power returns as U.S. sports normalizes and whether international momentum can backfill India’s absence. FanDuel still commands leading revenue share in U.S. online sports betting and igaming, according to Flutter’s disclosures, and engagement spiked around the Super Bowl. If handle growth steadies and parlay mix holds, margins can recover. Internationally, execution in Italy and progress in Brazil are in focus.
The larger stakes turn on India’s policy endgame. If lawmakers enact a sweeping ban and courts uphold it, India could be off limits to real-money formats for the foreseeable future, locking out foreign and domestic operators alike and constraining an industry that had projected rapid growth. If the judiciary narrows the scope or recognizes skill-based carve-outs, the market could reopen in a limited way, though with stricter compliance and marketing rules. Flutter’s impairment suggests it is planning for the worst while preserving optionality should the legal climate shift.
Either way, the episode reinforces that regulatory diversification is as important as product diversification. Flutter’s past quarters show it can absorb poor sports outcomes. Absorbing a major market shutdown is harder. The next signals will come from New Delhi’s legislative calendar and the Karnataka High Court docket. Until then, investors should expect the company to prioritize markets with predictable licensing, even if the near-term growth curve is flatter than India once promised.
