The report cited a veteran investigator for the Tennis Integrity Unit who estimated that “hundreds of matches at Futures level (both singles and doubles) are not being played fairly, with the numbers reducing as you move upwards through the ranks of the professional game.”

The available evidence, including a significant increase in the number of alerts sent when a match had unusual betting patterns or other suspicious circumstances, showed that the problem had worsened after the sale of the data rights. In 2012, there were only three match alerts at the Futures level; by 2016, that number had increased to 240. (From 2009 to 2017, men’s matches were responsible for 83 percent of T.I.U.’s alerts.)

The dissolution of the data deal was the first of the 12 recommendations in the report.

“Discontinuing the sale of official data at these lowest levels of tennis is a necessary, pragmatic and effective approach to containing betting-related breaches of integrity,” the report said.

But the panel did not recommend restricting data at the next tier of men’s events, the ATP Challenger Tour, where the rate of suspicious match reports is more than twice what it is at the Futures level. Data rights on that tour are owned by IMG, the sports and entertainment management company.

Live data from these tournaments can be used by gambling sites, particularly for wagers that can be made on elements of a match as it progresses.

Alex Inglot, a spokesman for Sportradar, called the proposal to end the company’s agreement with the I.T.F. for data rights at Futures events “unrealistic,” “potentially unlawful” and “heavy-handed.”

“Prohibition simply doesn’t work,” Inglot said in a statement. “Prohibiting data partnerships will not stop betting, live or otherwise, on these matches nor will it remove corruption risk at this level. Pre-match betting will remain available; unofficial data will be collected; generally available match statistics can be used by betting operators anyway; the risk of data fraud and ghost matches will increase; and there will be no clear contractual basis by which operators will be bound to reporting and transparency requirements. This will almost certainly encourage black market activity.”