Regulated iGaming Markets Compared
Nine regulated or transitional markets illustrate materially different routes from regulator oversight to legal market access.
- Sample
- 9 observations
- Version
- Release 05
- Published
- Data checked through
The 9 covered markets all regulate at least part of online gambling, but they do not use one interchangeable licensing model. The dataset contains 9 distinct recorded market-access descriptions, with product scope, regulator responsibility and register structure varying by jurisdiction.
What we tested
Which regulatory fields can be compared across the current BETTIMES market set without pretending their market-access systems are equivalent?
What the current sample shows
Calculated from the immutable Release 05 dataset. Percentages and counts describe only the published BETTIMES coverage set.
- 9
Recorded model descriptions
Distinct verbatim market-model descriptions across 9 profiles; these are not treated as a normalised taxonomy.
- 9/9
Official register links
Markets with a public operator, business or licensee register linked in the profile.
- 36
Public-source records
Regulator, authority, primary and dataset links attached to the market profiles.
| Classification | Count | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | Federal prior authorisation |
| Finland | 5 | Staged transition from exclusive rights to licensed online competition |
| Great Britain | 5 | Point-of-consumption licensing |
| Malta | 4 | B2C and B2B licensing hub |
| Ontario | 5 | Registration plus operating agreement |
| Sweden | 4 | National product-based licensing |
| Netherlands | 4 | National B2C remote-gambling licensing |
| Germany | 4 | Interstate framework with federal-state division of product responsibility |
| New Jersey | 3 | Casino-permit-holder model with approved online brands |
What follows from the evidence
Comparable research keeps regulator, product scope, market-access route, register and tax treatment in separate columns. A single ‘licensed’ field loses the distinctions that determine what the permission actually covers.
How we calculated it
- Compare the current market profiles field by field using only their attached public-authority sources.
- Separate regulator, market model, product scope, access route, register and tax treatment.
- Report differences descriptively; do not rank jurisdictions or convert unlike tax bases into a league table.
Reproduce the result
The HTML table and CSV expose the rows, source classes, source URLs and verification dates used here.
Open Regulated Market Monitor Download Release 05 CSVWhat this does not prove
- Nine markets illustrate different operating models but cannot represent every regulatory system.
- Product definitions and tax bases are jurisdiction-specific, so similar words can carry different legal scopes.
- The comparison is a dated research aid and not legal, tax or investment advice.
Cite the version, then check the rows
First published ; current version Release 05, published . Cite as “Regulated iGaming Markets Compared, Release 05, BETTIMES (2026-09-30)” and preserve the row-level verification dates. See the source policy for evidence rules and the corrections policy for changes.