Online Sports Betting Statistics Updated November 2026

Human Written & Fact Checked · Updated

100 France Sports Betting Statistics for 2026

France's betting market, adult participation and advertising environment require different measurements. This article keeps operator returns, survey estimates and selected advertising samples separate. Source dates describe publication; the data periods below describe when the measured activity occurred.

Headline figures

  • France licensed online market, 2025, GGR: €1.766 billion. (ANJ, Oct 2026)
  • France licensed online market, 2025, stakes: €11.517 billion. (ANJ, Oct 2026)
  • France licensed online market, 2025, Tennis stakes: €2.652 billion. (ANJ, Oct 2026)
  • France adult survey, 2023, Participation, all adults: 6.7%. (OFDT, Dec 2024)
  • France adult survey, 2023, Frequency 1–11 days/year: 46.4%. (OFDT, Dec 2024)
  • France adult survey, 2023, Problem-gambling prevalence: 15.3%. (OFDT, Dec 2024)
  • OFDT selected advertising corpus, 2014–2024, Corpus size: 124 advertisements. (OFDT, Mar 2025)
  • OFDT selected advertising corpus, 2014–2024, Advertisements showing men: 75 advertisements. (OFDT, Mar 2025)
  • OFDT selected advertising corpus, 2014–2024, Advertisements with a warning coded as non-compliant: 43 advertisements. (OFDT, Mar 2025)
  • PEPS monitored contents, 2024, Collected promotional contents: 2329 contents. (PEPS, Sep 2025)
  • PEPS monitored contents, 2024, Mean weekly publications during Euro 2024: 48.3 publications/week. (PEPS, Sep 2025)
  • PEPS monitored contents, 2024, Contents featuring Mohammed Henni: 155 contents. (PEPS, Sep 2025)

What do French regulated-market returns show?

ANJ's operator reporting describes the regulated online market through financial flows and activity measures. The table reproduced below places each sport alongside the overall market, while the surrounding source material explains its boundaries. Read a stakes column as betting volume and a revenue column as the regulator's gross gaming measure. A growth column compares periods within the same series. These columns answer different questions and cannot be substituted for one another. The subsections separate market totals and account averages from individual sports, then examine product composition. This order keeps the overall market context visible without treating the sport breakdown as a new national total.

How large was the licensed online sports-betting market?

  • GGR increased 10.4%. (ANJ, Oct 2026)
  • stakes increased 12.0%. (ANJ, Oct 2026)
  • Annual stakes per active account: €2,186. (ANJ, Apr 2026)
  • Annual GGR per active account: €335. (ANJ, Apr 2026)
  • Football online stakes: €6.320 billion. (ANJ, Oct 2026)
  • Champions League stakes increased 48.6% in calendar 2025 versus 2024. (ANJ, Oct 2026)

The market observations refer to calendar-year activity reported by licensed operators. Stakes are amounts wagered; gross gaming revenue is a different accounting measure. The headline totals appear once in the takeaways. The remaining market and account observations are: The account averages come from the earlier annual report. Active accounts are not deduplicated people: one individual can use multiple operators. The later sport-specific note supplies the updated sport breakdown. Neither document measures all unlicensed activity. No retail turnover, horse-race betting or poker is added to these sports figures. A competition's growth rate also describes that competition alone, instead of a change in the number of French bettors.

How did smaller sports differ in stakes and growth?

  • badminton: stakes 168 million euros. (ANJ, Oct 2026)
  • badminton: stakes growth 34.7%. (ANJ, Oct 2026)
  • handball: stakes 62 million euros. (ANJ, Oct 2026)
  • handball: stakes change -28.9%. (ANJ, Oct 2026)
  • mixed martial arts: stakes 46 million euros. (ANJ, Oct 2026)
  • mixed martial arts: stakes change -1.4%. (ANJ, Oct 2026)
  • mixed martial arts: ggr -9 million euros. (ANJ, Oct 2026)
  • cycling: stakes 48 million euros. (ANJ, Oct 2026)
  • cycling: stakes growth 41.8%. (ANJ, Oct 2026)
  • table tennis: stakes 152 million euros. (ANJ, Oct 2026)

The regulator's detailed breakdown retains each sport's own product boundary. In the following observations, monetary amounts are reported stakes unless explicitly labelled GGR. Growth rates compare the source's annual periods: A negative GGR value is possible when the reported outcome favours bettors within the measured category. It is not a negative volume of betting. Differences across sports can reflect their calendars, results and operator pricing. These values should not be converted into audience sizes, participation rates or a measure of the sporting popularity of the wider French population.

What do live-betting and volleyball boundaries change?

  • table tennis: stakes growth 47.3%. (ANJ, Oct 2026)
  • beach volleyball: stakes 73 million euros. (ANJ, Oct 2026)
  • beach volleyball: stakes growth 16%. (ANJ, Oct 2026)
  • beach volleyball: in-play share 89%. (ANJ, Oct 2026)
  • rugby union: stakes 199 million euros. (ANJ, Oct 2026)
  • rugby union: ggr 20 million euros. (ANJ, Oct 2026)
  • rugby union: stakes growth 11.4%. (ANJ, Oct 2026)
  • rugby union: in-play share 42%. (ANJ, Oct 2026)
  • volleyball: stakes (indoor) 216 million euros. (ANJ, Oct 2026)
  • volleyball: women's volleyball share 47.5%. (ANJ, Oct 2026)

The remaining observations distinguish indoor volleyball, beach volleyball and rugby union. These boundaries matter when comparing a sport's stakes with its share of live betting: Live betting means bets placed while an event is under way; it does not identify how many people used that feature. A share of women's volleyball stakes is likewise a product composition measure, not a survey of women who gamble. Beach volleyball is outside the indoor-volleyball total. Keeping these definitions visible prevents double counting and misleading comparisons between percentages with different denominators.

What did adults report about sports betting?

The EROPP material approaches betting through respondents' reported behaviour. It therefore complements the operator returns with questions about participation, frequency, expenditure and gambling-related problems. The figure below compares frequency categories within the source's participant groups. To interpret a survey result, first identify the eligible population, then the activity and reference period, and finally the denominator used for the percentage. A result for all adults differs from one restricted to people who already participate. The expenditure distribution answers another question again: how reported spending varies across respondents. These distinctions guide the two subsections and keep survey estimates separate from the financial measures above.

How do participation and frequency use different denominators?

  • Participation, men: 11.7%. (OFDT, Dec 2024)
  • Participation, women: 2.1%. (OFDT, Dec 2024)
  • Frequency 12–47 days/year: 26.5%. (OFDT, Dec 2024)
  • Frequency 48–299 days/year: 25.7%. (OFDT, Dec 2024)
  • Frequency 300–365 days/year: 1.4%. (OFDT, Dec 2024)

EROPP measures self-reported behaviour among adults. Participation refers to the stated adult population; frequency refers to people who reported the named gambling activity during the past year. The remaining survey observations are: These findings concern the survey's historical reference period. They are not counts of active online accounts or current-month measurements. Survey responses may reflect recall and reporting limitations. The frequency categories describe how often respondents played, instead of their stakes or operator revenue. The population, activity and time window must accompany any percentage quoted from this subsection. Findings covering all channels must not be relabelled as licensed online participation.

What do expenditure and risk-screening estimates describe?

  • Annual reported expenditure 10th percentile: 10 euros. (OFDT, Dec 2024)
  • Annual reported expenditure 25th percentile: 30 euros. (OFDT, Dec 2024)
  • Annual reported expenditure median: 120 euros. (OFDT, Dec 2024)
  • Annual reported expenditure 75th percentile: 440 euros. (OFDT, Dec 2024)
  • Annual reported expenditure 90th percentile: 1560 euros. (OFDT, Dec 2024)
  • Used internet at least once: 74.9%. (OFDT, Dec 2024)

Reported annual expenditure is summarised through quantiles. These show positions within a spending distribution, instead of separate amounts that can be added together. The remaining sports-betting findings are: The median differs from the mean, while upper percentiles describe higher positions in the distribution. Internet use does not mean that every bet was online or placed with a licensed operator. The problem-gambling estimate in the takeaways is a survey screening result within the stated participant group; it is not a clinical diagnosis of individual respondents. None of these survey measures is a substitute for the regulator's financial returns.

What appears in OFDT's advertising corpus?

OFDT's content analysis examines what selected sports-betting advertisements depict and communicate. Its unit of analysis is the advertisement, instead of the bettor or the advertising account. The reproduced table groups coded protagonists and settings, making the distinction between a collected item and a feature within that item visible. An advertisement can contain several features, so the coding describes patterns within the collection. The following subsections move from sample composition to the people and imagery shown, then to promotional themes. That sequence supports comparisons within the research material while retaining the collection method and category definitions needed to interpret each reported count.

How was the advertising sample composed?

  • Betclic advertisements: 57 advertisements. (OFDT, Mar 2025)
  • Winamax advertisements: 36 advertisements. (OFDT, Mar 2025)
  • ParionsSport advertisements: 22 advertisements. (OFDT, Mar 2025)
  • Unibet advertisements: 9 advertisements. (OFDT, Mar 2025)
  • Video share of corpus: 49%. (OFDT, Mar 2025)
  • Advertisements observed in public transport, also found online: 10 advertisements. (OFDT, Mar 2025)

The researchers assembled selected advertisements from online and physical settings. The corpus is not a census of French advertising, and its brand distribution should not be read as advertising-market share. Its remaining composition observations are: A public-transport advertisement also found online remains part of the same collection; it is not an additional unique campaign simply because it appeared in another location. The video percentage describes format within this sample. The study's retrospective coverage and collection method limit generalisation. Counts in this subsection describe collected material, not impressions, expenditure, unique viewers or the frequency with which a typical resident encountered a promotion.

Who and what appeared in the selected advertisements?

  • Advertisements showing real people: 79 advertisements. (OFDT, Mar 2025)
  • Advertisements showing women: 20 advertisements. (OFDT, Mar 2025)
  • Advertisements showing people under 30: 17 advertisements. (OFDT, Mar 2025)
  • Advertisements coded as depicting a minor: 9 advertisements. (OFDT, Mar 2025)
  • Advertisements depicting the sporting world: 76 advertisements. (OFDT, Mar 2025)
  • Advertisements showing supporters or bettors: 71 advertisements. (OFDT, Mar 2025)
  • Advertisements showing male professional athletes: 42 advertisements. (OFDT, Mar 2025)
  • Advertisements showing residents of working-class areas: 22 advertisements. (OFDT, Mar 2025)
  • Advertisements showing suburban residents: 14 advertisements. (OFDT, Mar 2025)
  • Advertisements coded for ethnic diversity: 16 advertisements. (OFDT, Mar 2025)
  • Advertisements showing anthropomorphised fictional characters: 19 advertisements. (OFDT, Mar 2025)

The original table codes protagonists and visual characteristics in the selected material. A single advertisement can satisfy several categories, so these counts must not be summed into a total audience or an exclusive breakdown: The minor category reflects researchers' interpretation, not verified ages. Neighbourhood categories describe coded imagery. They do not establish who actually saw the advertisement, who was targeted by an algorithm or who subsequently placed a bet.

Which promotional themes did researchers identify?

  • Advertisements coded with references to minors: 32 advertisements. (OFDT, Mar 2025)
  • Advertisements referencing the world of minors: 25 advertisements. (OFDT, Mar 2025)
  • Advertisements coded as encouraging excessive gambling: 17 advertisements. (OFDT, Mar 2025)
  • Advertisements coded as overstating chances of winning: 10 advertisements. (OFDT, Mar 2025)
  • Advertisements presenting gambling as social success: 20 advertisements. (OFDT, Mar 2025)

The study also assessed warning messages and themes that could raise concerns under the framework discussed by its authors. These are attributed coding judgments, not judicial findings. The remaining selected counts are: A theme can overlap with another theme or with a protagonist category. This analysis does not measure the causal effect of advertising on gambling participation. Nor can the selected corpus establish the national prevalence of a particular message. The source contains some inconsistent narrative percentages; this article retains the checked table counts and avoids those conflicting percentages. Interpretation stays within the study's design and the scope of each coded category.

What does PEPS add about social-media promotion?

The PEPS report examines promotional communication on social platforms through a monitored collection of material and accounts. This introduces several units of analysis: a publication, an account, a coded technique and a partnership category. The figure below illustrates the techniques discussed in the expertise analysis. The subsections first describe the collection and its sources, then examine promotional framing, and finally report the study's warning-message and access findings. Keeping these units visible counts because an account can publish repeatedly and a publication can receive several classifications. The findings describe the monitored environment under the study's procedures, with the relevant subgroup retained in each observation.

Who produced the material collected during monitoring?

  • Identified social accounts: 113 accounts. (PEPS, Sep 2025)
  • Contents from influencers/public figures: 63%. (PEPS, Sep 2025)
  • Contents from media accounts: 33%. (PEPS, Sep 2025)
  • Contents from operators: 4%. (PEPS, Sep 2025)
  • Sports-decoder accounts: 34%. (PEPS, Sep 2025)
  • Sports-content-creator accounts: 17%. (PEPS, Sep 2025)
  • Winamax share of influencer contents: 45%. (PEPS, Sep 2025)
  • Unibet share of influencer contents: 21%. (PEPS, Sep 2025)
  • Betclic share of influencer contents: 10%. (PEPS, Sep 2025)
  • Vbet share of influencer contents: 10%. (PEPS, Sep 2025)
  • Ephemeral share of advertisements: 55%. (PEPS, Sep 2025)
  • Mean weekly publications outside Euro 2024: 20 publications/week. (PEPS, Sep 2025)
  • Weekly publication increase during Euro 2024: 142%. (PEPS, Sep 2025)

PEPS monitored promotional material during 2024. Its collection was explicitly non-exhaustive. The following observations distinguish content sources, account categories, brands and publication frequency; those denominators are not interchangeable: Brand shares concern influencer material, while account categories describe the identified accounts. Weekly averages compare the competition window with the rest of the monitored period; they are not population exposure estimates. The observed increase does not by itself establish a causal effect on betting.

How did expertise and potential gains feature in the analysis?

  • Use of sports specialists: 48%. (PEPS, Sep 2025)
  • Predictions and staking advice: 25%. (PEPS, Sep 2025)
  • Sports-analysis videos: 23%. (PEPS, Sep 2025)
  • Bettor testimonials: 2%. (PEPS, Sep 2025)
  • Observed influencers showing betting benefits: 19%. (PEPS, Sep 2025)
  • Influencers above one million followers showing gains: 60%. (PEPS, Sep 2025)

The expertise chart reports coded promotional techniques. Its percentages are presented as chart findings, without inventing a population denominator beyond the source's analysis. The remaining technique and influencer observations are: Follower thresholds describe accounts, not deduplicated audiences. The appearance of a public figure in collected material is not a count of people influenced by that figure. Likewise, showing potential benefits is distinct from measuring actual bettor profits. The source's claims about persuasion should not be converted into a numerical causal estimate. No external survey quoted second-hand in the report has been included among this article's selected observations.

What limits apply to warning-message and access findings?

  • Sports decoders with compliant warnings: 64%. (PEPS, Sep 2025)
  • Sports decoders without a health warning: 18%. (PEPS, Sep 2025)
  • Stories without a compliant health warning: 87%. (PEPS, Sep 2025)
  • Permanent contents with compliant warning: 27%. (PEPS, Sep 2025)
  • Permanent contents without warning: 43%. (PEPS, Sep 2025)
  • Formal-partnership contents accessible to fictitious minor account: at least 14.5%. (PEPS, Sep 2025)
  • Suspected unformalised partnership contents accessible to fictitious minor account: 32%. (PEPS, Sep 2025)
  • Influencer contents assessed as not respecting ANJ guidelines: 30%. (PEPS, Sep 2025)
  • Formal-partnership contents assessed as not respecting ANJ guidelines: 47%. (PEPS, Sep 2025)
  • Mega-influencers assessed as not respecting ANJ guidelines: 47%. (PEPS, Sep 2025)

PEPS assessed warnings and access using its monitoring procedures. The observations below are the study's reported assessments, with content formats and partnership categories kept separate: Fictitious-account access does not describe every young person's feed. The report's compliance assessments are attributed to its authors and are not independent legal determinations. Conflicting warning-message statements elsewhere are excluded. The remaining percentages retain their named subgroups and should not be combined into a national rate.

Glossary

Stakes
amounts placed on bets, potentially including repeated use of returned funds.
Live betting
bets placed during an event.
Corpus
a defined collection of material selected for analysis.

Methodology and sources

Every figure on this page comes from the organisation that produced it: regulators, statistics offices, public bodies, research institutes, and companies reporting their own data or surveys. Each one links to the original report or dataset and carries its release date. Survey results keep their population and fieldwork period, and financial figures keep the measure the producer used. Figures from different producers are not added together or ranked against each other. The page is reviewed monthly and updated when a producer releases newer data.