Four iGaming Markets Compared
Brazil, Great Britain, Malta and Ontario use four different routes from regulator oversight to legal market access.
- Sample
- 4 observations
- Published
- Data checked through
The 4 covered markets all regulate online gambling, but they do not use one interchangeable licensing model. The dataset records 4 distinct access descriptions: federal prior authorisation, point-of-consumption licensing, a B2C/B2B hub and registration paired with an operating agreement.
What we tested
Which regulatory fields can be compared across Brazil, Great Britain, Malta and Ontario without pretending their market-access systems are equivalent?
What the current sample shows
Calculated from the linked dataset at build time. Percentages and counts describe only the published BETTIMES coverage set.
- 4
Distinct access models
Calculated from the market-model field across the four profiles.
- 4/4
Official register links
Markets with a public operator, business or licensee register linked in the profile.
- 16
Public-source records
Regulator, authority, primary and dataset links attached to the market profiles.
| Classification | Count | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | Federal prior authorisation |
| Great Britain | 5 | Point-of-consumption licensing |
| Malta | 4 | B2C and B2B licensing hub |
| Ontario | 5 | Registration plus operating agreement |
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 four 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 CSVWhat this does not prove
- Four 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 . Cite this canonical page and preserve the data verification date. See the source policy for evidence rules and the corrections policy for changes.