Martin Moshal, the Durban-born online gambling entrepreneur who co-founded Microgaming and backs Betway, has given roughly R118 million ($7.4 million) to four South African political parties over five years, according to Electoral Commission filings compiled by The Outlier.
The breakdown: R48 million to the Democratic Alliance, R47 million to ActionSA, R15.5 million to Build One South Africa and R7.5 million to the Inkatha Freedom Party. He is the largest declared donor to both ActionSA and BOSA, and the second-largest to the DA behind Capitec founder Michiel le Roux. He gave a further R5 million each to ActionSA and the DA ahead of the 2026 local government elections. All donations are legal and declared.
Moshal co-founded Microgaming in 1994 and launched The Gaming Club in South Africa on the domain casino.co.za, developing foundational patents in online gambling technology including what is described as the world’s first online progressive jackpot slot. Microgaming powers Betway, in which he is a backer. He also co-founded Entrée Capital, which manages around $1.25 billion with offices in Tel Aviv, London and New York.
He no longer lives in South Africa, having settled in Sydney. The overlap between the donor’s industry and the recipients’ policy positions is the obvious question, and the answers have been uneven. ActionSA, his largest recipient by concentration, declined to comment.
BOSA communications director Graham Charters declined to answer whether the party supports a ban, referring instead to an older statement proposing a 6 percent national sin tax on online gambling companies.
The DA answered directly. Trade and industry spokesperson Toby Chance said the party supports a legal but tightly regulated environment, requiring amendment of the National Gambling Act, with expanded protections for vulnerable users and device-level identification. He said the DA opposes an outright ban because prohibition drives illicit operators, “as we have seen in the alcohol and cigarette industries.”
No party has been accused of altering policy in response to a donation, and no evidence of that has been presented.
