PSG FC Slams Cbet with Bankruptcy Claim in Curaçao

Top-flight soccer club Paris Saint-Germain has filed a bankruptcy claim against its former sponsor Cbet. While the sponsorship deal lasted only a single season, the gambling company continued listing the team as a partner.

Cbet Might Be in Trouble

As reported by NEXT.io, PSG filed the claim against Cbet’s parent company, AK Global NV, in a Curaçao court. It relates to the team’s expired deal with Cbet, which cemented the crypto operator as an official sponsor of the club in Latin America.

The arrangement was originally penned in December 2022 and covered a single season. Sources reported that although the original deal had expired, Cbet continued to list the soccer club as a partner on its site and across its social media accounts.

PSG, on the other hand, had reportedly removed mentions of Cbet from its site as soon as the deal ended. The news outlet has reached out to the soccer club to confirm whether the sponsorship deal had truly ended.

In any case, Cbet has since removed mentions of PSG from its official X account.

Sources told NEXT.io that the case is set to be heard in court on January 22 in the Curaçao Joint Court of Justice. It comes soon after Cbet has failed to pay a EUR 5 million penalty in Spain.

Cbet, for context, was recently left without a license in Curaçao as the region transitions to a new regulatory and licensing framework.

BC.GAME Faces Similar Issues

The Cbet bankruptcy case comes shortly after BC.GAME, another company licensed in Curaçao, encountered similar trouble. The latter operator’s parent companies were declared bankrupt, and although BC.GAME reassured GamblingNews that its betting business was stable, it closed its UK sportsbook shortly after. The company’s license in Curaçao is also at risk, prompting it to seek new licenses elsewhere.

In the meantime, the Curaçao Gaming Control Board (GCB) recently addressed the ongoing reforms amid serious misconceptions about the new regulatory framework. It refuted common misunderstandings and clarified certain points.

The GCB also briefly mentioned the BC.GAME case, saying that it cannot comment more on the still-ongoing matter.