A young African’s future should not be a betting market

The case for banning commercial gambling starts with the money households cannot afford to lose—and the futures a betting slip cannot build.

OPINION / EVIDENCE & PERSPECTIVE · THE DAILY PULSE EDITORIAL

The most expensive promise can arrive in a very small amount: one bet, one possible win, one chance to change everything. Our objection is not to a young person wanting a better life. It is to making that hope a product whose business depends on money remaining with the operator.

African countries should move towards banning commercial gambling. That is our editorial position, not a claim that a blanket ban has already been proved the best policy in every country. It deserves a serious argument about household finances, public health and enforcement—not contempt for people who gamble.

R74.5 billion is not a youth-only figure

South Africa’s National Gambling Board recorded gross gambling revenue of R74.498 billion in the financial year ending 31 March 2025. Betting accounted for R51.975 billion, about 69.8% of the total. The regulator defines gross gambling revenue as turnover less winnings paid to players. It is not the much larger sum repeatedly wagered, and it is not the industry's final profit after expenses.

At this aggregate level, it reflects the amount retained by the recorded operators after payouts. It does not tell us how much was lost by young people specifically, or by everyone across Africa. We do not have a verified continent-wide youth-loss total. Giving one would make an important argument less trustworthy.

But the scale should still disturb us. Money retained by gambling operators is money no longer available to those players for other purposes. The public-interest question is what a society chooses to encourage when many people need dependable routes into work and opportunity.

Harm does not begin at a diagnosis

The World Health Organization describes gambling harm that reaches beyond the gambler: financial distress, relationship damage and neglect of children. It notes that diverting money from essential household spending can compromise food, housing, healthcare and education. Someone does not need a clinical diagnosis before their household experiences damage.

That is why the language of personal weakness fails. A person can need help while an industry needs limits. Shaming a young bettor will not restore their money, repair their relationships or make the product safer. The appeal of a possible win also cannot be understood without listening to the conditions in which people are trying to earn a living.

A ban needs a plan, not a slogan

Critics of prohibition raise a real question: what happens if customers move to illegal or offshore operators? Governments must answer it. A ban without credible enforcement, cross-border cooperation, support for people harmed and a transition for workers could exchange a visible market for a harder-to-monitor one.

WHO's public-health recommendations include ending advertising and sports sponsorship, mandatory protective limits and effective enforcement. They do not amount to an endorsement of our proposed blanket ban. Those measures nevertheless offer concrete action while countries assess and design stronger restrictions.

Our proposal is a phased prohibition of commercial gambling, with the earliest priority on promotion and easy access that reaches young people. Its success should be judged by reduced harm, not the number of arrests of vulnerable users. Independent evaluation should test whether illegal markets grow and whether families are actually better protected.

A tax receipt cannot settle that debate. We should count the costs beyond the operator's accounts: household insecurity, damaged trust and attention pulled towards another attempt to recover a loss. Those costs need evidence, not an invented price tag.

The future we owe young Africans is a chance to build, work, learn and belong. Betting should not become our substitute for offering it.