Commission structures are usually designed at program launch and then modified piecemeal as new partners negotiate custom terms. After 18 months, a typical program has a mix of CPA deals, RevShare arrangements, hybrid models, and one-off custom agreements that no single person fully understands. The original logic made sense. The accumulated modifications often do not.
A prop trading firm might have 150 affiliate deals. Twenty were set at $80 CPA per challenge purchase when the average challenge price was $200. The firm later introduced a $500 premium challenge, but those 20 deals still pay $80 flat -- meaning the firm pays the same acquisition cost for a $500 customer as for a $200 customer. This is margin leakage, and it hides in plain sight.
The Commission Audit Checklist
List all active deal types: CPA, RevShare, hybrid, tiered, and custom arrangements
Calculate effective commission rate per deal as a percentage of net revenue generated
Identify deals with no expiration date, no volume minimums, or no quality thresholds
Compare current CPA rates against actual customer lifetime value per affiliate
Flag RevShare deals where the partner cost exceeds 40% of net revenue over 6 months
Review multi-tier structures for downstream commission leakage at each level
Common Commission Problems by Vertical
Vertical
Common Issue
Diagnostic Question
iGaming
RevShare deals with no NGR floor
Are any affiliates earning commissions on players with negative NGR?
iGaming
CPA rates not adjusted for geo
Do you pay the same CPA for a UK FTD and a Tier-3 market FTD?
Forex
Lot-based rebates on dormant accounts
Are IBs earning rebates on accounts with no trading activity for 90+ days?
Forex
Multi-tier IB structures paying 5+ levels
What percentage of total commission goes to the originating IB vs. downstream tiers?
Prop Trading
Flat CPA across challenge tiers
Does CPA scale with challenge price, or is it static?
Prop Trading
No clawback on refunded challenges
Do you recover commission when a challenge purchase is refunded?
Dead deals are the silent cost center. Any agreement that has generated zero conversions in 90 days but remains active is consuming administrative overhead and creating liability risk. Flag and review all zero-activity deals quarterly.
Margin Analysis Framework
The goal of a commission audit is not to cut costs blindly. It is to ensure that every dollar in commission spending generates proportional value. Calculate your commission-to-revenue ratio per affiliate, per deal type, and per vertical. A healthy iGaming program typically runs at 25-35% of NGR in total affiliate costs. A Forex IB program might target 15-25% of spread revenue. If your ratios exceed these ranges, the audit has found something worth investigating.
Document every finding with the specific deal ID, partner name, and estimated monthly impact. Vague findings like "some deals seem expensive" do not lead to action. Specific findings like "Deal #1247 pays $120 CPA for players with an average LTV of $85" drive immediate renegotiation.
Key Takeaways
Commission structures drift from their original design as custom deals accumulate over time
Calculate effective commission rate as a percentage of net revenue -- not just the nominal CPA or RevShare percentage
Each vertical has predictable commission problems: iGaming NGR floors, Forex lot-based dormancy, Prop Trading flat CPA across tiers
Flag all zero-activity deals quarterly and document findings with specific deal IDs and estimated financial impact