Brazil vs. Peru vs. Colombia: Comparing Latin America’s Regulated Online Gambling Licenses

Brazil, Peru, and Colombia offer three different answers to the same question: how do you transform a gray-market gambling sector into a licensed, tax-generating industry?

Colombia took the lead, regulating online gaming in 2016 and spending nearly a decade developing a mature concession model. Peru followed: a 2024 licensing window attracted 145 operator applications, and channelization figures have since shown measurable growth. Brazil came last but made the biggest impact—its regulated sports betting and online gaming framework launched on January 1, 2025, with GGR already projected to reach around US$5.5 billion for the year. If you’re specifically evaluating a Brazilian gaming license, the entry requirements and compliance timeline differ substantially from the other two markets covered here.

All three are moving in the same regulatory direction. Beyond that, the similarities quickly fade. License structure, entry costs, tax design, operator density, and enforcement maturity—each market has its own logic. Aggregate revenue figures won’t tell you which one makes sense for your operation, or in what order to apply. What actually drives that decision: approval timelines, compliance burden, payment infrastructure, and how much gray-market activity survives after regulation. The comparison below maps out each of these dimensions.

Licensing Frameworks at a Glance: How Brazil, Peru, and Colombia Differ for Operators

Colombia operates under one of the most straightforward frameworks in the region: a single regulator, several verticals, and a predictable path to compliance. Brazil offers the largest market, but also the greatest political uncertainty. Peru falls somewhere in the middle: the rules are clear, but the regulatory body itself underwent structural reform in July 2025.

For an operator at the due diligence stage, it all comes down to three questions: who issues the license, what products does it cover, and is the system stable enough to build a business plan around it?

Authorized verticals and product scope in each market

Brazil permits fixed-odds betting and a range of casino products under its fixed-odds regime. Peru divides licenses into two types: remote gaming and remote sports betting—separately. Colombia offers the broadest portfolio through Coljuegos concessions, but requires approval for each individual game.

Before hiring lawyers, an operator should answer one specific question: Which verticals am I actually permitted to offer? The answer will differ in each of the three countries.

Peru’s dual licensing structure means that if an operator wants to offer both sports betting and casino games, it must obtain and maintain two separate licenses, each with its own software certification requirements. In Colombia, game approval through Coljuegos extends launch timelines but gives the regulator detailed control over content. Brazil’s regulatory framework is formally the most liberal, but secondary regulations are still taking shape, and a number of product categories are still awaiting ministerial clarification.

Brazil: the biggest licensing opportunity, but also the most policy-sensitive

Brazil combines the region’s greatest potential for demand with a licensing process and compliance regime that still require careful timing, local infrastructure, and close attention to enforcement milestones.

The regulatory authority is the Secretaria de Prêmios e Apostas (SPA), housed within the Ministry of Finance. Operators apply for a fixed-term concession, pay the R$30 million (roughly USD 6 million) concession fee, and must incorporate a Brazilian legal entity locally—not an optional formality, but a strict prerequisite for authorization. The framework went into effect on January 1, 2025, ending the transitional period and moving into active enforcement: 78 licensed operators across 138 brands are now operating under regulatory scrutiny.

Sports betting is the core sector, and Brazil’s regulatory intensity reflects that. Advertising rules, responsible gambling requirements, and financial monitoring all apply primarily to this category. The commercial potential is real—GGR projections approach US$11 billion by 2030—but so is the political sensitivity. Enforcement priorities shift with government cycles, and the concession model was still maturing through 2025. Operators entering the market now face a compliance environment that is both active and still evolving.

Peru: Clearer Licensing Rules, Less Upside Potential, and Tighter Operational Constraints

Peru offers one of the most transparent licensing regimes in the region—but the transparency of the rules does not negate the actual restrictions on terms, guarantees, and technical certification.

Unlike the politically sensitive concession process in Brazil or the fragmented provincial regulation in Argentina, the Peruvian regime, administered by MINCETUR, provides a clear, publicly documented path. In practice, this means that while the rules are known in advance, it is still impossible to navigate each stage without disciplined process management.

Understanding the Different Types of Licenses Is Key

In Peru, there are two distinct categories:

• Remote sports betting—a separate vertical with its own product certification requirements
• Online gaming (casino format)—licensed independently, with a separate set of compliance documentation

Each route has its own approval timeline and technical certification phase. Operators active in both verticals go through both processes independently of one another.

Operational restrictions that must be factored into the plan

• A local presence or a registered “subsidiary” is mandatory—a foreign legal entity without a local counterpart is insufficient
• Financial guarantees must be provided before approval is granted, not after
• Technical certification of the system adds time beyond the licensing application process itself
• In 2024, 145 operators applied for a license, and 63 were approved—approval is not automatic

Commercial Cap

The Peruvian market was valued at $2.3 billion in 2023 and is projected to reach approximately $6 billion by 2026. Growth is real—but the figures are significantly lower than those in Brazil. For operators choosing between the two markets, Peru’s regulatory predictability is an advantage; the size of the target market is a conscious trade-off.

Colombia: South America’s First Online Gaming Regulator and How the Concession Model Works in Practice

Colombia is significant because it was the first South American market to regulate online gaming, and that early start established a concession model with more operational precedent than most of the region.

Coljuegos—Colombia’s national gambling regulator—has been issuing concession contracts since 2016, covering up to five verticals under a single licensing structure: sports betting, casino, poker, bingo, and lottery-linked products. This breadth gives operators more product flexibility than in many newer frameworks, but it also means compliance obligations are correspondingly detailed. Active accounts now exceed 7 million, and annual betting volume surpasses US$5.38 billion—numbers that reflect a decade of channel development rather than a newly opened market.

To enter the market, operators have three practical options: applying for a direct concession contract with Coljuegos, partnering with an existing concessionaire through a revenue-sharing arrangement, or acquiring a stake in a licensed entity. The direct route provides full brand control but entails the highest compliance setup costs. Revenue-sharing partnerships reduce upfront exposure but require careful structuring to meet Coljuegos’ transparency requirements regarding beneficial ownership and financial flows.

What sets Colombia apart operationally is the predictability of license renewals and the depth of responsible gambling obligations that have been stress-tested across multiple license cycles—making it the clearest benchmark for evaluating the actual cost of compliance maturity in Latin America.

How to Compare License Applications, Fees, and Approval Timelines in Each Market

Brazil, Peru, and Colombia—each has a formal entry path, but the logic differs. Brazil is strict on deadlines, Peru requires the most documentation, and Colombia relies on negotiations.

When to choose each route: Brazil is the priority if an organization is prepared for a high upfront fee and needs the largest market, despite the regulator’s political sensitivity. Peru is suitable for those who want a clearly structured process with predictable stages. Colombia is for operators willing to negotiate directly with Coljuegos: a mature system reduces regulatory uncertainty, but approval speed depends on the complexity of the specific transaction rather than a standard checklist.

Active license counts and market concentration: how many operators are actually live

Peru has reduced the number of operators from 118 initial licenses to approximately 85 that are actually operating. Since the beginning of 2025, Brazil has issued 14 full licenses and more than 50 temporary licenses—and the process has not yet stabilized. Colombia operates with a fixed set of concessions without new rounds.

The gap between issued licenses and operators that are actually active is one of the most reliable indicators of market saturation.

Colombia is the most concentrated of the three markets: one concession per 2.8 million residents, closed model. In Brazil, 78 licensees operate under 138 brands—the market is fragmented at the outset, but forced consolidation is already reducing this number. In Peru, the illegal market has shrunk by 40%, indicating real growth in the share of licensed operators; however, the number of suspensions shows that compliance requirements are weeding out weaker players.

For an operator evaluating market entry, what matters is not the total number of licenses, but the number of license holders that are operating sustainably. The same logic applies to all three markets: broad initial authorization, followed by regulatory tightening that concentrates the market in the hands of well-capitalized and compliance-ready brands.

Tax, compliance, and player-protection obligations that reshape the business case

The tax burden and compliance requirements are often more significant factors than the license itself when an operator evaluates the economics of market entry.

Brazil has the heaviest tax structure of the three. A 12% tax on GGR is levied on top of corporate income tax. On top of that, there are mandatory reserves for responsible gaming and strict AML/KYC requirements: every gaming account is linked to a CPF number. Self-exclusion tools, spending limits, and temporary advertising restrictions are mandatory—all of which complicate onboarding and CRM. A concession fee of R$30 million (≈ USD 6 million) is payable before the first bet is accepted.

Peru charges 12% on net winnings plus a 1% consumption tax—a combined rate comparable to Brazil’s, but without a comparable concession fee. KYC is standardized at the national level through MINCETUR, which reduces legal uncertainty. AML reporting to the Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF) creates an operational burden but does not exceed regional standards.

Colombia is a mature market with a different approach: Coljuegos does not apply a flat GGR rate but rather a variable fee structure, with five separate vertical licenses available. AML operates according to SARLAFT standards, and player protection includes session limits and identity verification upon registration.

Payments infrastructure and onboarding of local players across the three markets

The payment infrastructure in each market is directly determined by the regulatory framework. Brazil requires operators to process all deposits and payouts through PIX—the Banco Central do Brasil’s real-time payment system. International card schemes are effectively excluded from the main transaction flows, and PIX integration must be native, not through aggregators. In Colombia, the Coljuegos framework allows for a broader range of payment methods—cards, digital wallets—but restricts cross-border settlements: to accept players’ funds, a local legal entity is required. Peru has the same requirements: locally registered payment accounts, plus a GGR-style tax structure at 12%, which directly affects how operators factor payment costs into their margins.

Gray-market practices complicate onboarding in all three jurisdictions. Players coming from unregulated markets often use informal transfer schemes that a licensed operator cannot accept—and this creates friction right from the registration stage. The outcome depends on specific solutions: a KYC workflow tailored to local document standards, an interface in Portuguese or Spanish, and real-time deposit confirmation. Without these, players will simply turn to offshore alternatives that continue to operate throughout the region.