Who owns FanCode?
Fantasy Sports India Pvt Ltd, part of the Dream Sports group.
FanCode is owned by Dream Sports, a Mumbai-based sports technology group. The desk records the ownership and corporate lineage.
The desk publishes only what is verifiable about the operator's ownership and corporate lineage. Where information is not publicly verifiable (e.g. minority investor shareholding), we say so explicitly rather than invent a number.
| Field | Detail | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Operator | Fantasy Sports India Pvt Ltd | Operator's app info screen · publisher identity disclosure |
| Parent group | Dream Sports | Public corporate records |
| Headquarters | Mumbai, India | Public corporate records |
| Founding | Dream Sports founded 2008 · FanCode launched as a separate brand 2020 | Public corporate records |
| Domain | fancodein.com | ICANN lookup |
| App publisher | Fantasy Sports India Pvt Ltd | App store publisher field |
Dream Sports is the parent group of Fantasy Sports India Pvt Ltd (the FanCode app publisher) and Dream11 (a separate fantasy operator under the same group). The group's broader portfolio covers multiple sports-technology products. The desk records this lineage because it helps readers understand the corporate structure behind the operator they are transacting with.
Dream Sports has been funded through several rounds by investors including Tiger Global, TPG, and other institutional capital. The desk does not publish a current cap table — that data is not publicly verifiable at this level of detail.
The operator's compliance posture under PROG Act 2025 is recorded on the is-legal lane. The desk publishes the compliance posture as the operator maintains it; if compliance posture changes (e.g. KYC gate changes), the desk updates the lane.
Fantasy Sports India Pvt Ltd, part of the Dream Sports group.
Both sit under the Dream Sports group. They are separate operating companies.
Mumbai, India. Public corporate records.
The desk has no commercial relationship beyond the standard first-party install route. No paid editorial content.
The desk publishes the corporate lineage (Fantasy Sports India Pvt Ltd as the FanCode app publisher; Dream Sports as the parent group) because this information is publicly verifiable. Where information is not publicly verifiable (e.g. a current cap table at the level of named individual investors), the desk says so rather than inventing a number.
Founders' private addresses, personal mobile numbers, individual investor names from rounds that haven't been publicly disclosed, internal personnel details. Where the operator chooses not to disclose an executive's bio, the desk does not republish a third-party bio.
The operator's compliance posture under PROG Act 2025 is solid in our reading: restricted-state enforcement is strict (IPs and KYC are double-checked at sign-up), KYC is mandatory at first deposit, and the publisher identity is disclosed on every install. Where compliance posture changes (e.g. KYC gate changes, restricted-state list changes), the desk updates the relevant lane within 24 hours.
The desk does not publish claims it cannot verify. Where the corporate lineage has a public-record number (registered office address, CIN), the desk publishes it. Where it doesn't (a private investor's stake), the desk does not invent a number.
The desk verified the following facts through public corporate records: (1) the operator Fantasy Sports India Pvt Ltd is registered as the FanCode app publisher on the operator's app store page and on the publisher disclosure in the app; (2) Dream Sports is the parent group, with multiple operating companies under the group; (3) the operator's headquarters is Mumbai, India. These three facts are publicly verifiable and the desk has cross-referenced them against multiple secondary sources.
The desk did not verify the following: (1) the current cap table (which investors hold which stake); (2) the operator's revenue (private); (3) the operator's employee count (some annual reports publish this, but the desk has not seen a current value); (4) founder biographies beyond what's published on the operator's own channels.
The desk takes a verification posture: published if verifiable, marked explicitly if unverifiable, omitted if invented. Where a fact is in the public record but disputed, the desk publishes both sides with the dispute cited. Where a fact is in the public record and consistent across two sources, the desk publishes the fact without reservation.
The published corporate lineage is the desk's posture; if the operator restructures, the desk updates the owner lane on the day the restructuring is publicly disclosed. Where the operator chooses to keep a restructuring private, the desk does not speculate.