Sadettin Saran Sentenced to 2 Years and 6 Months in Illegal Betting Advertising Case

Sadettin Saran, the president of Turkish football club Fenerbahce, and his brother Alan Kenan Saran have been sentenced to 2 years and 6 months in prison over allegations that illegal betting advertisements appeared during football broadcasts on S Sport.

The Istanbul 23rd Criminal Court of First Instance also imposed a judicial fine of 562,500 Turkish lira on each of the Saran brothers. Two other defendants in the same case, Emre Eren and Azade Zeynep Haksal, were acquitted.

The ruling concerns broadcasts aired on S Sport, a sports channel and digital platform operated under the Saran Group. Prosecutors argued that illegal betting brands were visible during football matches and that the broadcasts amounted to encouraging viewers to participate in unauthorized sports betting.

The court found Sadettin Saran and Alan Kenan Saran guilty of promoting illegal betting through advertising or similar means. However, the decision was issued by a first-instance court and is not yet final. The defense is expected to appeal the ruling.

What the Court’s Decision Means

The case has drawn attention in Turkey because it sits at the intersection of sports broadcasting, foreign broadcast feeds and the legal responsibility of media companies. At the center of the dispute is whether S Sport knowingly carried illegal betting advertisements or whether those visuals were part of an international match feed beyond the broadcaster’s direct control.

Saran’s defense argued that the matches were received through foreign broadcast signals and that the company did not create, sell or place the advertising content seen around the pitch. According to the defense, the disputed visuals appeared within the live match feed provided by foreign leagues, clubs or rights holders.

The court nevertheless concluded that criminal responsibility existed for Sadettin Saran and Alan Kenan Saran. The acquittal of two other defendants in the same file suggests that the court assessed each person’s role, authority and responsibility within the company separately.

Because the ruling is still open to appeal, the case will likely move to a regional appellate court. That stage is expected to focus on intent, technical control and the limits of broadcaster liability.

Broadcasts Named in the Indictment

The indictment referred to findings requested from RTUK, Turkey’s radio and television regulator. According to the case file, illegal betting advertisements were allegedly visible on stadium boards, pitch-side areas and advertising spaces near the goal during several football broadcasts.

The broadcasts listed in the file included:

• July 25, 2023: Zalgiris Vilnius vs Galatasaray
• August 1, 2023: FC Zimbru Chisinau vs Fenerbahce
• August 8, 2023: NK Olimpija Ljubljana vs Galatasaray
• August 17, 2023: NK Maribor vs Fenerbahce
• August 24, 2023: Dynamo Kyiv vs Besiktas
• August 31, 2023: Twente vs Fenerbahce
• La Liga and Serie A broadcasts: Matches in which illegal betting brands allegedly appeared through virtual advertising systems embedded in the international broadcast feed

Prosecutors argued that the advertisements reached a wide audience and had the effect of encouraging participation in illegal betting. The indictment also claimed that company representatives and executives had responsibility for allowing such broadcasts to reach viewers in Turkey.

The defense rejected that interpretation. It argued that the broadcasts were obtained under agreements with leagues, clubs or authorized providers and were transmitted as part of a live feed. The defense also maintained that S Sport did not receive advertising revenue from the illegal betting brands shown during the matches.

Why La Liga and Serie A Matches Were Suspended

One of the key developments behind the wider debate was S Sport’s temporary decision to stop broadcasting La Liga and Serie A matches. The move came after RTUK imposed administrative fines on several broadcasters, including S Sport, S Sport+, Exxen TV and TV8, over illegal betting ads appearing during sports broadcasts.

S Sport said that some La Liga and Serie A matches included illegal betting brands through virtual advertising technology used in the original international feed. Such systems can display different advertising content depending on the territory or broadcast market.

The broadcaster argued that it could not directly intervene in the signal sent to Turkey. As a result, some La Liga and Serie A matches were not aired for a period. S Sport said it had requested a clean feed from the relevant leagues, meaning a version of the broadcast without illegal betting advertisements for the Turkish market.

Once changes were made to the signal sent to Turkey, the matches were able to return to air without the disputed advertising content. This point is likely to remain central to the Saran case, as the defense is built around the argument that the broadcaster did not control the pitch-side ads and could not technically remove them from the live feed.

Acun Ilicali Case May Be Cited on Appeal

If the Saran case goes to appeal, the defense may point to a recent acquittal involving Acun Ilicali, one of Turkey’s best-known television executives and the owner of TV8 and Exxen. In that separate case, Ilicali and executives from TV8 and Exxen were acquitted of similar allegations related to illegal betting advertisements appearing during football broadcasts.

The Istanbul 25th Criminal Court of First Instance ruled in that case that the element of criminal intent had not been established. Although the two cases are not identical, they raise a similar legal question: can a broadcaster be held criminally responsible when illegal betting ads appear inside a foreign sports feed, particularly if the broadcaster did not create or sell those ads?

That question is expected to be one of the most important issues in the appellate process. The court will likely examine whether S Sport had the technical ability to block or alter the feed, whether a clean signal was requested, how the broadcast rights agreements were structured and whether the appearance of the ads is enough to prove intent.

For now, the ruling represents a significant legal setback for Sadettin Saran, but it does not mark the end of the case. The final outcome will depend on how the appellate court assesses the evidence, the technical limits of the broadcast feed and the legal threshold for proving intent in illegal betting advertising cases.