France: Esports betting ban and regulation
By Dr Estelle Ivanova, Attorney at Law, Paris, France
The French gambling regulator, Autorité nationale des jeux (ANJ), has recently reiterated that betting on esports competitions remains prohibited in France.
This reminder came on 7 July 2026, against the background of the Esports World Cup, which was held in Paris from 6 July to 23 August 2026, an event bringing together 25 tournaments across 24 games and offering more than US$75 million (around €64.6 million) in prize money.
The timing is noteworthy. Esports have developed into a major international economic and cultural phenomenon, and betting has become a significant part of the wider esports’ ecosystem. Yet, France has maintained a deliberately restrictive approach, notwithstanding the increasing visibility of esports competitions and the regulatory choices made in a number of other jurisdictions.
The French legal position
French law draws a clear distinction between esports competitions and the regulated market for sports betting.
The legal framework governing video game competitions was introduced by Law No. 2016-1321 of 7 October 2016 for a Digital Republic, which gave such competitions a specific legal status. Article L.321-8 of the French Internal Security Code defines a video game competition as one in which at least two players or teams compete, through a video game, for a score or victory. Significantly, the same provision expressly states that the organisation of a video game competition does not include the organisation of betting.
This specific legal regime must be understood within the broader structure of French gambling law. The French sports betting market is not based on a general freedom to offer bets on any competitive event.
French law operates a restrictive system under which sports betting may only be offered on sporting competitions and events included on the list of authorised betting events established by the ANJ. Pursuant to Article 12 of Law No. 2010-476 of 12 May 2010, the ANJ determines this list having regard to the risks of manipulation presented by the competitions or events concerned. In determining whether a competition may be included on this so-called liste sport, the ANJ also considers several criteria, including whether the event is regularly organised; the accessibility of its rules and the existence of rules governing the publication of results; the reputation and significance of the event; the age of eligible participants; and whether the results reflect objective and quantifiable performances rather than pure chance.
Esports competitions, therefore, remain outside this regulated sports-betting framework. As the ANJ has recently reiterated, esports betting is not authorised in France.
Why does France remain cautious?
The French position is not explained by the absence of an esports market. Quite the contrary: esports attract a substantial and particularly young audience. Rather, the principal concerns relate to the distinctive organisation of esports, consumer protection and competition integrity.
Unlike most traditional sports, esports do not generally operate within a pyramid of clubs, national federations and international governing bodies. The competitive ecosystem is largely privately organised. Game publishers own the intellectual property rights in the games and exercise considerable control over the organisation and commercial exploitation of competitions.
This distinction was expressly recognised at the European level by the European Parliament in its Resolution of 10 November 2022 on esports and video games (2022/2027(INI)). The Parliament observed that esports differ from traditional sports, because they are digital by definition and are essentially driven by private entities, with intellectual property rights belonging to game publishers and competition rights belonging either to publishers or being determined contractually. It also noted the continuing absence of harmonised definitions and legal frameworks across the European Union (EU).
Those characteristics matter when considering betting regulation. A regulated betting market requires reliable competition rules; identifiable organisers; mechanisms for exchanging information; effective monitoring; and safeguards against manipulation. The question, therefore, is not simply whether esports should be recognised as “sport”, but whether the institutional framework surrounding particular esports competitions can provide safeguards equivalent to those expected in traditionally regulated sports competitions.
Integrity and the risk of manipulation
Integrity, perhaps, is the strongest argument underlying the French approach.
Esports have not been immune from match-fixing. Their international and digital nature, the age of many participants and the availability of betting markets outside France may create particular vulnerabilities.
These concerns have also been recognised at the EU level. In paragraph 12 of its Resolution of 10 November 2022 on esports and video games (2022/2027(INI)), the European Parliament expressly acknowledged “the need to safeguard esports from problems with match-fixing, illegal gambling and performance enhancement, including doping”. It further underlined the need to prevent doping and match-fixing in professional gaming and to protect the integrity of competitions.
The issue also forms part of the wider international discussion concerning the manipulation of competitions. The Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions (the Macolin Convention) establishes an international legal framework based on cooperation between public authorities, sports organisations, competition organisers and betting operators in order to prevent, detect and sanction the manipulation of sports competitions.
Within that framework, the Network of National Platforms, known as the Copenhagen Group, facilitates operational cooperation and exchanges of information between national platforms. Esports were among the issues addressed at the Group’s 10th meeting, held by the Council of Europe on 5 and 6 May 2026. This is particularly relevant since the effectiveness of any future opening of esports betting would depend not merely upon authorising bets, but upon the existence of mechanisms capable of detecting suspicious betting activity, sharing relevant information and responding effectively to attempted manipulation
Prohibition or regulation?
The French position, therefore, rests on understandable concerns. The protection of minors and young adults, the prevention of excessive gambling and the integrity of competitions are legitimate regulatory objectives, particularly in an ecosystem which does not generally operate within the same institutional structures as traditional organised sport.
Nevertheless, as esports continue to grow, questions arise as to whether outright prohibition will remain the most effective regulatory response in the longer term.
Despite the prohibition, French consumers may still encounter esports betting offers on illegal gambling sites accessible from France. As the ANJ itself emphasised in July 2026, persons using illegal gambling sites do not benefit from the protections available on the regulated French market, including safeguards designed to prevent minors from gambling and dispute resolution mechanisms, and may also be exposed to significant financial losses and the risk of gambling addiction.
This gives rise to a regulatory dilemma deserving of consideration. The concerns which justify excluding esports from the legal betting market, particularly consumer protection and integrity, may also invite reflection on whether, under sufficiently stringent conditions, regulation could, eventually, offer greater protection than prohibition.
Any such development would require substantial safeguards. It would be necessary to identify the competitions eligible for betting; establish sufficiently robust governance and integrity standards; ensure cooperation from publishers and tournament organisers; protect minors and vulnerable players; and put in place effective mechanisms for detecting and sharing information concerning suspicious betting and possible manipulation.
The issue should not, therefore, be reduced to a binary choice between recognising esports as traditional sport and maintaining a permanent prohibition. Esports have their own legal, economic and institutional characteristics. Any future regulatory framework would need to reflect those characteristics.
For the time being, France has chosen the side of caution. But, as esports continue to develop and integrity mechanisms become more sophisticated at the European and international levels, the question may increasingly be not simply whether esports betting should be permitted, but under what conditions it could be regulated without compromising the principles of consumer protection, integrity and transparency on which the French gambling model is based.
Whether this will eventually lead to a change in the French regulatory approach remains to be seen.
Dr Estelle Ivanova may be contacted by e-mail at ‘
