Transparency · Updated July 2026
We'd rather over-explain this than leave it to a one-line footer note. Here's exactly how MzansiSpins makes money, who we currently have relationships with, and why none of it touches our ratings.
MzansiSpins is funded entirely through affiliate commission. When you click a "Claim Bonus" button or a casino name on this site and go on to register with that operator, we may receive a commission from the operator — at no extra cost to you, and regardless of whether you win, lose, deposit or never fund the account at all. Every casino name and CTA on this site that links to an operator does so through an affiliate link. There's no other revenue source: no display advertising, no paid placements outside the affiliate relationship, and no subscription fee to read anything here.
This is the same commercial model used by essentially every comparison site in this category, and by a large share of independent product review sites generally — the difference we're aiming for isn't in the business model itself, it's in how clearly we disclose it and how strictly we keep it separate from editorial judgment. Plenty of readers are understandably wary of "reviews" that are really just advertising in disguise; this page exists to give you enough detail to judge for yourself whether that's what's happening here.
As of the date at the top of this page, we have an active affiliate relationship with all three operators currently listed on this site. There's nothing hidden in this list — it's the complete set.
| Operator | Relationship | Appears in comparisons |
|---|---|---|
| Pantherbet | Affiliate commission on sign-up | Yes |
| 10bet South Africa | Affiliate commission on sign-up | Yes |
| Hollywoodbets | Affiliate commission on sign-up | Yes |
If we add a fourth operator to the board, or a new commercial relationship of any kind, this table gets updated on the same day — not retroactively once someone asks. The same applies if a relationship ever ends while an operator remains listed for other reasons.
No. Our Spin Dial scores are built from the four weighted categories described in how we rate casinos — wagering fairness, payout speed, local payment support, and licensing and trust signals. Commission rate isn't one of them, and isn't a hidden fifth factor either. In practice this means an operator that pays us more per sign-up can still score lower than one that pays less, if their wagering terms or withdrawal speed are worse. Our full commitment on this is spelled out in our editorial guidelines, including our policy against accepting gifts, hospitality or any other incentive from an operator beyond standard commission.
There's a difference worth being explicit about. Getting listed on this board at all requires clearing a minimum bar — a verifiable licence, a working FICA process, enough local payment methods, a test withdrawal that actually settled. An operator can pay us commission and still fail that bar, in which case they don't appear on the site regardless. Once listed, where an operator lands on the Spin Dial scale is decided purely by the methodology, not by the commercial relationship. We've turned away partnership enquiries from operators that didn't meet that bar, and we'll continue to.
For readers unfamiliar with the model: gambling operators pay comparison and review sites a commission — sometimes a flat fee per new depositing customer, sometimes a share of that customer's losses over time (known as revenue share), sometimes a hybrid of both — in exchange for driving new sign-ups. This is standard practice across the online gambling industry globally, not something specific to smaller sites like this one; most large gambling operators run formal affiliate programs specifically designed for this purpose; and it's why casino comparison content exists as a category at all.
What varies enormously between sites is how that commercial relationship is disclosed, and whether it's allowed to influence editorial content. South Africa's Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) requires that advertising content be clearly identifiable as such, and that any material commercial relationship be disclosed to consumers. We've built our disclosure practice — a version of this page's summary on every single page, not buried in a single terms document — to go further than the bare minimum that standard requires.
At the time of writing, every review on this site follows our standard, unpaid-in-terms-of-content-direction testing process — no operator has paid for editorial placement, favourable wording, or a guaranteed score. If that ever changes and we publish sponsored content, it will be clearly labelled as sponsored at the top of the page, separate from our standard "Casino review" byline, and will not carry a Spin Dial score generated by our normal methodology. We'd rather lose the option to sell sponsored placements than blur the line between what's tested and what's paid for.
It's worth explaining the mechanism, because it's how bias creeps into affiliate content even without anyone deciding to be dishonest. A revenue-share deal pays a site a percentage of what a referred player loses over time, which creates an incentive to send players toward operators with weaker player protections or higher house edges, since a player who loses more generates more commission. A flat CPA (cost-per-acquisition) fee, paid once per sign-up regardless of what happens after, removes that specific incentive but can still bias a site toward whichever operator pays the highest flat fee rather than whichever is actually best for the player.
We don't publish the specific commercial terms of each individual affiliate agreement, which is fairly standard across the industry, but the fixed scoring weights described in how we rate casinos exist specifically to neutralise both of these dynamics — a score is built from wagering fairness, payout speed, payment support and licensing, full stop, regardless of which commission structure sits behind any given operator relationship.
A one-line disclaimer buried in a footer is easy to write and easy to ignore. We put a version of this disclosure on every page of the site, not just this one, because we think a reader deciding whether to trust a bonus comparison deserves to know upfront how the site behind it gets paid. Our About Us and editorial guidelines pages cover the same commitment from different angles — who we are, and the rules we hold ourselves to — but this page is specifically about the money, since that's usually the first question a skeptical reader has.
No. Any commission we earn comes from the operator's marketing budget, not from you, and doesn't change the bonus terms, deposit amounts, or odds you get compared to signing up directly.
That's a fair question, and the honest answer is that the commercial relationship exists whether we disclose it or not — the real question is whether it visibly affects the ratings. Our fixed scoring weights, published in how we rate casinos, and our commitment never to let commission move a score, are how we try to answer that rather than just asserting our own trustworthiness.
The operator would remain on the board and continue to be scored using the same methodology as long as they still clear our minimum bar — commission isn't a condition of being reviewed, only of how we fund the site.
Not currently — every operator on the board today has an affiliate relationship with us, as shown in the table above. If that ever changes, this page will reflect it immediately.
Yes — all of our comparison content, methodology, and guides are readable without clicking through to any operator. The affiliate links only come into play if you choose to follow one to sign up somewhere.
Yes — this page is reviewed on the same monthly cycle as our operator listings, and updated immediately outside that cycle if our commercial relationships change in any material way.