controlling the story when markets turn

In modern capital markets, reputation can evaporate faster than liquidity. For companies operating in the iGaming ecosystem – where unclear regulations, complex technology and public skepticism already overlap – the margin for error is thin. When outside opinion shifts, especially under pressure from short sellers who try to benefit from a drop in stock price, the iGaming crisis management challenge isn’t just to respond to allegations. It is to stabilise trust across three fronts simultaneously: investors, regulators and the public.

These past weeks have offered a vivid case study. Sportradar, one of the sector’s most prominent providers of sports data and betting technologies, has found itself under pressure following reports by US short-sellers alleging links to black-market gambling operations. The claims – amplified rapidly across media and trading desks – triggered a sharp reaction in its share price and forced the company into an accelerated communications cycle.

Sportradar CEO steps forward

At the centre of this response was CEO Carsten Koerl, who chose to address the allegations not through a conventional press release, but, unusually, via a highly personal open letter published on LinkedIn. It was, in tone and substance, a departure from the scripted neutrality typically favoured by listed companies under fire.

“I am, first and foremost, a competitor,” Koerl began, before describing the short-seller reports as an “unfounded attack” designed to “create panic” and “profit from the disruption”.

“I take this as a personal attack considering my position and responsibility I have for investors, clients, partners and employees,” Koerl wrote. He framed the allegations as both a corporate and personal affront, emphasising his three decades in the industry and his role in building Sportradar into what he called “the gold standard of the industry”.

Unregulated revenues below 12%

In the company’s earnings report which shortly followed, Koerl also said only a small share of revenue – about 5%-12% – is linked to grey-market exposure, far below external estimates. His decision to go personal is fraught with risk, explains Ronn Torossian, chairman of communications firm 5W: “A CEO going personal can cut through corporate noise and tell the market a human is accountable. Done wrong, the CEO becomes the story instead of the company.”

Koerl’s letter was laden with pathos – he described the reports as “false, misleading and defamatory” – with assertions of operational rigour, highlighting Sportradar’s compliance processes, its Nasdaq listing and its financial performance. It also sought to contextualise specific allegations, including claims regarding past investments linked to Russian entities, which he characterised as misrepresented and opportunistically framed.

Torossian’s analysis of the Sportradar CEO’s crisis communication strategy is measured: “Koerl calling it a ‘personal attack’ was bold. It works when the CEO has credibility banked and facts ready to back [them]. It backfires when emotion outruns evidence. Lead personally, finish factually. If you can’t do both, stay corporate.”

A sector under scrutiny

The sequencing of Sportradar’s response suggests an awareness of this balance. Alongside the open letter, the company brought forward its quarterly earnings call, effectively compressing its communications timeline to regain control of the narrative. This move, Torossian argues, was “textbook”, adding: “control the calendar, control the story”, seems to be the order of the day.

The logic is straightforward. In the age of activist short-sellers, reports are timed for maximum market impact, often landing before companies have had time to formulate a response. “Short-sellers script the story before the market opens,” Torossian notes, “and if you’re still drafting while they’re trending, you’re already behind.”

The era in which companies could rely on generic assurances of compliance has, in Torossian’s view, passed. “‘We comply with all applicable laws’ used to be enough. Today it lands like elevator music,” he says. “What resonates now: specifics you can be held to. Show your work or get shorted again.”

Koerl’s letter attempted to provide such “proof points”, referencing a dedicated division tasked with identifying illegal use of Sportradar data, and emphasising the company’s role in supporting regulatory frameworks and combating match-fixing. But the real test, according to Torossian, isn’t how quickly the company responds, it’s whether that response holds up over time. What matters is if later updates, including the earnings call, support or weaken the story set in the first two days.

Refreshing response

For investors, the distinction is critical. As Ralph Topping, former CEO of William Hill, observes, there is value in seeing leadership step forward directly. “I think you want to communicate, and you want to hear from the chief executive,” he tells iGB. “I don’t see anything wrong with Carsten Koerl defending the company or responding to the allegations that have been made.”

Topping suggests that such visibility is overdue in many corporate crises. “It’s refreshing to see a CEO stand up and not hide behind a spokesperson or reputation management firms,” he argues. “I think he’s given an honest and passionate response.”

Whether that passion translates into investor confidence is less certain. “It may,” Topping says. Markets, in theory, are governed by evidence rather than emotion. In practice, however, the presence of a credible, visible leader can influence sentiment – particularly in the early stages of a reputational shock.

Lessons from Playtech and Evolution

Sportradar’s approach contrasts with other recent episodes in the iGaming sector, notably the long-running legal dispute involving Playtech, Evolution and private intelligence firm Black Cube. In that case, the communications strategy was more fragmented, with legal manoeuvring often taking precedence over public narrative.

The market response was telling. Evolution, which pursued a defamation case, ultimately saw its position strengthened, while Playtech absorbed more sustained reputational damage initially. For Torossian, the lesson is clear: “The companies that recover quickly go on the offense legally when defamed. The companies that suffer lasting damage stonewall, hide behind lawyers and treat communications as cleanup instead of strategy.”

Topping draws a similar contrast, albeit from a different angle. “He’s on the front foot straight away,” he says of Sportradar’s Koerl. “He hasn’t given critics time to regroup – he’s come out fighting. I’m not sure we saw much of that in those other cases,” Torossian adds.

Three audiences, one crisis

This approach reflects a broader shift in crisis management within the sector. Historically, companies tended to respond cautiously, prioritising legal risk over reputational responsiveness. Today, the logic has changed. Information spreads too quickly and silence is too easily interpreted as guilt or weakness.

Yet this shift brings its own challenges. As Torossian notes: “Same crisis, three different audiences, three different muscles,” he says. “Institutional investors want substance. The public and the media want a clear narrative and a face. Regulators want documentation and discretion.”

But Sportradar’s multi-channel response – combining a LinkedIn letter, an accelerated earnings call and, presumably, a direct engagement with regulators – carries a risk of inconsistency. Torossian warns: “The mistake companies still make is running one message at all three. That’s how you sound corporate to investors and evasive to the public at the same time.”

Structural vulnerabilities in iGaming

At the core of this comms management approach is a structural problem in iGaming. Its business model depends on complex data networks, third-party partners and operating across different legal jurisdictions, which makes reputational risks almost unavoidable. “What’s a feature commercially is a vulnerability reputationally,” Torossian observes, pointing to “aggregators, third-party distribution, grey-market ambiguity, geo-blocking that’s only as good as a VPN”.

In such an environment, allegations of black-market exposure are not merely reputational threats; they strike at the core of the business model. Even if unfounded, they resonate because they exploit existing uncertainties. For executives like Koerl, the challenge is not only to deny specific claims, but also to defend the legitimacy of their business model. This is where credibility – built over years but tested in key moments – becomes crucial.

Topping emphasises the importance of this long-term perspective. “At the end of the day, integrity is the most important quality in any business,” he says. “Clients need to trust you, and you need to show trust in them.” Which is why crisis communication is so critical: “A bad name is the hardest thing to recover from,” he says.

A new information battlefield

In the digital age, the battleground extends beyond traditional media and investor relations. As Torossian points out, stakeholders increasingly rely on AI-driven platforms to form initial impressions. “Investors, journalists, customers and regulators now research companies on ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini. If your story isn’t built into how those platforms describe you, the short-seller’s version is.”

This introduces a new dimension to iGaming crisis management: the need to shape not only immediate narratives, but also the underlying data ecosystem from which those narratives are generated. It is, in effect, a battle for informational control. “Crisis is a communications war fought on a legal battlefield,” Torossian concludes. “Confuse the two and you lose both.”

For Sportradar, the war is still in its early stages. The coming weeks will determine whether its initial response is seen as decisive or merely defensive. What is already clear, however, is that the rules of engagement have changed. Speed is essential, but insufficient. Visibility matters, but must be matched by verifiable detail. And above all, credibility – earned over years – can be called into question in an instant.

In such a landscape, the companies that endure will not be those that avoid crises altogether. They will be those that understand how to navigate them: to respond quickly without being reckless, to communicate clearly without oversimplifying and to defend their reputations without losing sight of the underlying evidence that ultimately sustain them.