Tax Treatment of Sports Betting: a Comparison between Brazil, Malta and the United Kingdom

Cayo Horacio Farias de Moraes; Luana Zanetti Trindade Ferraz

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602762

Article derived from a Final Course Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by the Pecege Institute for textual synthesis and organization.

Abstract

The regulation of online sports betting has consolidated as a relevant fiscal and economic transformation, impacting the digital market and public revenue. In Brazil, Law No. 14.790/2023 and the action of the Secretariat of Prizes and Betting, starting in 2025, established a new licensing and taxation regime, aligning the country with international practices. The study aimed to compare, from a descriptive and documentary perspective, the structural differences of the tax systems and legal models applied to the sports betting sector in Brazil, Malta, and the United Kingdom, identifying international best practices applicable to the Brazilian context. The research was conducted with an applied and descriptive character, adopting a documentary and comparative approach, with quantitative support, through multiple case studies. Data were obtained from legal documents, government reports, international databases, and specialized scientific literature. The results revealed that revenue efficiency did not depend solely on the tax rate, but on technological integration and regulatory stability. The Brazilian model, based on taxation of Gross Gaming Revenue (GGR), presented operational simplicity and lower risk of base manipulation, but faced competitiveness and adaptation challenges. Malta demonstrated a flexible model, with taxation on net operating revenue, attracting investments. The United Kingdom, in turn, exhibited a mature system, with high regulatory predictability, technological integration, and robust responsible gaming policies. It was concluded that the improvement of the Brazilian model will depend on the balance between revenue collection, competitiveness, and control, incorporating international best practices. The work contributed with an applicable roadmap for the improvement of the national model, with an emphasis on digital integration, transparency, and mitigation of social harms.

Keywords: Sports betting; Brazil; Malta; United Kingdom; Taxation.

1. Introduction

The online sports betting market has experienced accelerated expansion in recent years, driven by technological advancements, widespread digital connectivity, and the popularization of mobile devices. This growth represents a significant transformation in the entertainment economy and consumer behavior, with a direct impact on tax revenue and public policy formulation. Globally, countries with a tradition in gaming and betting regulation, such as the United Kingdom and Malta, have consolidated legal and fiscal structures capable of balancing revenue collection, competitiveness, and bettor protection.

In Brazil, the scenario began to change expressively with the sanction of Law No. 14.790/2023, on December 30, 2023, which regulated fixed-odds betting and established clear rules for the operation and taxation of companies in the sector. Since 2025, the norm has been in full effect, enabling the country to collect taxes on online sports betting and create a formal regulatory environment. The Secretariat of Prizes and Betting (SPA) and the Federal Revenue of Brazil (2025) indicate that the sector’s revenue, from January to September 2025, totaled around R$ 6.85 billion, considering all applicable taxes, demonstrating the segment’s economic potential.

International studies reinforce the importance of balanced regulation for the sector. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2024) points out that the taxation of online betting and gaming should seek a proportional relationship between revenue collection and market sustainability, avoiding fiscal overload and informality. Research from the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA, 2024) and HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC, 2024) indicates that stable regulatory systems, combined with compliance and social responsibility policies, contribute to the credibility and longevity of operations. Malta, for example, has consolidated itself as a global iGaming hub, accounting for over twelve percent of its GDP, in a sector estimated between 1.3 billion and 1.5 billion euros (Times of Malta, 2025), while the United Kingdom stands out for the maturity and transparency of its fiscal model.

From these references, it is observed that Brazil is still in the initial phase of consolidating its tax system for the sports betting market. The adopted model has a strong revenue-generating character and requires structural adjustments to ensure competitiveness, legal certainty, and administrative efficiency. The topic, therefore, assumes both economic and social relevance, considering the revenue potential, the risks of informality, and the challenges of regulating a transnational digital activity.

The need to understand the fiscal and regulatory approaches of more mature markets justifies this study. Thus, the present work has as its general objective to compare the tax treatment of sports betting in Brazil, Malta, and the United Kingdom, identifying the differences between their legal and fiscal models and pointing out international best practices that can contribute to the improvement of the Brazilian system.

2. Material and Methods

The research was conducted with an applied and descriptive character, adopting a documentary and comparative approach. The multiple case study method was used, covering Brazil, Malta, and the United Kingdom. The selection of these countries was based on the economic relevance of their sports betting markets and the distinct degrees of regulatory and fiscal maturity that each presented. This diversity allowed for a consistent comparative analysis, aligned with the general objective of the study.

The work was developed in the period between October 2025 and February 2026. During this phase, only public and secondary data were used. The methodological steps followed a logical sequence that included the bibliographic survey, documentary collection, data systematization, and the subsequent execution of case studies.

To deepen the practical analysis of tax application, a representative case study was conducted in each of the three countries. In Brazil, a licensed online sports betting operator based in São Paulo was examined. The analysis focused on the impact of Law No. 14.790/2023 on the company’s cost structure and tax obligations, providing an overview of the national regulatory reality.

In Malta, the case study was based on public information from a company that is part of the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA), operating under the Gaming Act (Cap. 583) regime. In the United Kingdom, the analyzed case referred to a betting operator registered with the UK Gambling Commission. The practical application of the Remote Gaming Duty and compliance with tax requirements established by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) were observed.

The case studies allowed for a comparison of tax incidence, licensing procedures, the destination of collected resources, and compliance obligations imposed on companies. The collected data were structured to enable a cross-country analysis, aiming to identify convergences, divergences, and good regulatory practices.

The data were obtained from various sources, including legal and regulatory documents, government reports, international databases, and specialized scientific literature. In the Brazilian context, Law No. 14.790/2023, Law No. 13.756/2018, and the ordinances of the Secretariat of Prizes and Betting (SPA) of the Ministry of Finance were analyzed.

For Malta, the Gaming Act (Cap. 583), the Remote Gaming Regulations (S.L. 583.04), and the annual reports of the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) were used. In the United Kingdom, the analysis was based on the Gambling Act 2005, the Finance Act 2014, and the reports from HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) and the UK Gambling Commission.

Due to the different currencies of the three countries (real, euro, and pound sterling), the financial values compared were converted to the real (R$). The average reference rates from February 2026 were adopted, coinciding with the data collection closing date. The exchange rates used were approximately R$ 5.10 per dollar, R$ 5.55 per euro, and R$ 6.45 per pound, according to information from the Central Bank of Brazil.

The data analysis was performed descriptively and interpretively, based on theories of fiscal policy and economic regulation. The information obtained in the case studies was cross-referenced with the legal and economic data of the three countries. This approach allowed for the identification of tax patterns and impacts in the sports betting sector, following a comparative perspective that considered aspects of revenue efficiency, market attractiveness, and regulatory balance.

As the research was based on secondary data and public information from the analyzed companies, it was recognized that some detailed financial information was not fully available, which limited the scope of the comparisons. However, the triangulation between legal documents, official reports, and business data ensured the reliability of the obtained results.

3. Results and Discussion

The global online sports betting market has shown expressive growth in recent years, driven by digitalization and widespread connectivity. In 2024, the global volume of sports betting reached approximately R$ 510 billion (US$ 100 billion), with about eighty percent of this amount coming from the online segment, according to Statista (2025). This scenario of global expansion reflects the growing economic relevance of the sector and the need for robust regulatory and fiscal systems, such as those observed in countries with more mature markets.

In Brazil, the enactment of Law No. 14.790/2023, in 2023, and the subsequent implementation of the regulatory system by the Secretariat of Prizes and Betting (SPA), starting in 2025, established a new taxation model for fixed-odds betting. This regulation aims to formalize a market that, until then, was predominantly operated by unlicensed foreign platforms. The Ministry of Finance’s expectation (2025) is that the sector’s annual revenue will reach R$ 12 billion from 2026 onwards, highlighting the activity’s fiscal potential.

In contrast, Malta has consolidated itself as a global economic pillar for iGaming, attracting international operators due to its predictable legal environment, competitive tax burden, and advanced technological infrastructure. The sector contributes over twelve percent to the country’s GDP, with an estimated revenue between R$ 7.2 billion and R$ 8.3 billion (€ 1.3 billion and € 1.5 billion) in 2024 (Times of Malta, 2025). The United Kingdom, on the other hand, maintains its position as Europe’s largest regulated betting market, characterized by a consolidated tax structure, high degree of compliance, and tax revenues exceeding R$ 22.6 billion (£ 3.5 billion) annually, according to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC, 2024).

The comparative analysis of general indicators in the sports betting market between 2024 and 2025 revealed that Brazil, with an estimated revenue of R$ 28.7 billion in 2024, collected R$ 6.85 billion in taxes from January to September 2025, representing 0.23% of the GDP. The Brazilian tax model imposes twelve percent on the operational revenue from bets. Malta, with an estimated revenue between R$ 7.2 billion and R$ 8.3 billion, registered a tax collection of R$ 386 million (€ 69.5 million) in 2024, with the sector contributing over twelve percent of the GDP, and taxation on net operational revenue exceeding five percent. The United Kingdom, in turn, presented an estimated revenue of R$ 90.9 billion (£ 14.1 billion), with tax collection of R$ 22.6 billion (£ 3.5 billion), corresponding to 0.5% of the GDP, and a taxation model that includes the General Betting Duty (GBD) of fifteen percent for bets and the Remote Gaming Duty (RGD) of twenty-one percent for online games.

The documentary analysis of the legal and fiscal frameworks revealed significant structural differences among the three countries. In Brazil, Law No. 14.790/2023 established mandatory licensing for operators and a twelve percent tax on net revenue from betting (amount wagered minus prizes paid), known as Gross Gaming Revenue (GGR). Part of this revenue is allocated to areas such as sports, education, tourism, health, public safety, and social security, in addition to providing for an annual concession fee and integrity and audit obligations.

In Malta, the tax system for sports betting operators is not based on a single rate on global revenue. The five percent Gaming Tax applies only to revenue generated by resident players. For international operations, the Compliance Contribution applies, a variable contribution with decreasing rates (from four percent to 0.6%) on GGR, limited to an annual cap of R$ 3.33 million (€ 600 thousand). This model, regulated by the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA), is characterized by simplification, legal stability, and a fiscal environment that favors investments, with an emphasis on money laundering prevention and digital security.

In the United Kingdom, taxation is defined by the Gambling Act 2005 and the Finance Act 2014. Fixed-odds sports betting is taxed by the General Betting Duty (GBD) at a rate of fifteen percent on gross profit, while the twenty-one percent Remote Gaming Duty (RGD) applies to online gambling. Oversight is shared between HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), responsible for collection and enforcement, and the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC), which ensures the integrity of operations. The British model stands out for its regulatory clarity, fiscal predictability, and strong technological integration between operators and the government.

The comparison between the tax regimes of Brazil, Malta, and the United Kingdom revealed important differences in the incidence base and fiscal management. Brazil taxes GGR, which is the amount wagered minus the prizes paid. Malta, in turn, uses net operating revenue as its base. The United Kingdom adopts Gross Gaming Yield (GGY), which is conceptually equivalent to GGR. The choice of the tax base directly impacts the predictability of revenue collection and the flexibility of operators.

In the Brazilian context, the incidence on GGR limits companies’ ability to deduct operational costs, making revenue collection more predictable and reducing the risk of accounting manipulations. However, this model can generate pressure on operators’ profitability, especially in scenarios with tight margins, which can negatively influence investment and expansion decisions in the national market. Operational simplicity is an advantage, but competitiveness may be affected.

In Malta, taxation on net income allows operators to deduct operational costs and expenses, offering greater managerial flexibility. Although this aspect is positive for companies, it also creates room for more aggressive tax planning strategies, such as the allocation of costs in international structures to reduce the taxable base. This flexibility requires a more robust oversight capacity from the regulatory authority, the MGA.

In the United Kingdom, the use of GGY, similar to the Brazilian GGR, is also the basis for taxation. Elements such as bonuses and promotions can influence this base, creating opportunities for indirect reduction of the tax burden. In general, the closer the tax base is to profit, the greater the possibility of accounting interventions. Thus, the Maltese model presents greater vulnerability to manipulation, followed by the British one, while the Brazilian model, despite being more rigid, shows less exposure to this type of risk.

From a managerial perspective, more flexible models, such as Malta’s, favor tax optimization and earnings management strategies, but demand higher levels of governance and control. In contrast, the Brazilian model stands out for its simplicity and lower compliance cost, although it may compromise the economic efficiency of operations. Regarding fraud risk, systems based on net revenues or profits require more robust control and audit mechanisms, given the possibility of cost manipulation and the use of complex corporate structures.

The case study of Betano (Kaizen Gaming Brasil Ltda.) in Brazil, one of the first operators to obtain a provisional license, revealed that the company ended 2025 as the leader of the regulated market, with a revenue of approximately R$ 36.9 billion in GGR. On this base, an effective tax burden of twelve percent was applied, according to Law No. 14.790/2023. The main difficulty identified was the complexity of the fiscal system and the absence of digital integration between the Federal Revenue Service, the SPA, and payment platforms, which increases the cost of compliance and reduces the competitiveness of national companies compared to foreign ones. However, the company demonstrated a high degree of adaptation to the technical requirements of the law, with emphasis on the integrity audit reports of sports matches and user monitoring.

In Malta, Betway Limited, licensed by the Malta Gaming Authority, exemplified a successful international operation. The MGA’s annual reports (2024) and financial data from Super Group Limited (Betway’s parent company) indicated a global revenue of approximately R$ 9.4 billion (€ 1.7 billion) in 2024. The direct tax burden in Malta is reduced, with the five percent Gaming Tax applying only to local players and the Compliance Contribution subject to an annual cap of R$ 3.33 million (€ 600 thousand) per license, resulting in proportionally low direct taxes relative to global turnover. The Maltese model proved efficient and predictable, with the MGA’s digital structure allowing full integration between operators and the fiscal system, featuring automated audits and mandatory quarterly reports, reducing compliance costs and fostering fiscal transparency. The Maltese business environment also provides agility in license renewal and regulatory stability, encouraging the establishment of corporate headquarters and technology centers. However, the Maltese model prioritizes economic efficiency over broader social policies, with the percentage allocation of tax revenues to social programs, such as the Responsible Gaming Fund, representing less than 0.5% of the total collected in 2024, and the reliance on the iGaming sector raises concerns about economic diversification.

In the United Kingdom, the case study of Flutter Entertainment plc (Betfair), parent company of brands such as Betfair and Paddy Power, revealed that the company registered global revenue of approximately R$ 71.7 billion (US$ 14.05 billion) in 2024, of which about R$ 16.7 billion (US$ 3.28 billion) came from operations in the United Kingdom. Sports betting is subject to the General Betting Duty (GBD) at a rate of fifteen percent on gross profit, with integrated and automated collection from HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC). The British tax model proved to be mature and strongly integrated into the fiscal control system, with real-time audited transactions and automated collection, which constitutes one of the main competitive advantages. In addition to the revenue component, the company allocates part of its revenue to responsible gambling programs and sports sponsorships with ethical clauses, demonstrating alignment between fiscal policy, social responsibility, and corporate marketing. The British system offers high regulatory predictability, allowing for long-term planning and continuous investment in technological innovation, although the relatively high level of taxation and the strong state involvement in responsible gambling policies may reduce profit margins compared to countries with lower tax burdens, such as Malta.

The quantitative comparison between the operators revealed that Betano (Brazil) had an approximate annual revenue of R$ 36.9 billion (regulated sector GGR, 2025), with estimated taxes paid of R$ 456 million (twelve percent on GGR) and an effective tax burden of twelve percent on gross revenue. Betway (Malta) recorded global revenue of R$ 9.4 billion (€ 1.7 billion) in 2024, with taxes limited by the Compliance Contribution cap, resulting in an effective tax burden exceeding one percent on net revenue. Flutter/Betfair (United Kingdom) presented global revenue of R$ 71.7 billion, of which R$ 16.7 billion was in the United Kingdom in 2024, with taxes paid corresponding to fifteen percent of GBD on bets and an effective tax burden of fifteen percent on gross profit. These comparative data indicated that the differences in the calculation base and the rate are decisive for the fiscal attractiveness and performance of the companies.

The integrated analysis of the results showed that institutional maturity, fiscal orientation, and each country’s strategic positioning in the global online sports betting market are crucial factors. The United Kingdom, with its regulatory system consolidated since the Gambling Act 2005, demonstrated a predictable and transparent business environment, reinforcing the confidence of investors and the public. The coordinated action of HMRC and the UK Gambling Commission establishes a governance standard that balances efficient revenue collection with social protection, reflecting a high degree of regulatory development.

Malta, in turn, achieved institutional stability through a simplified fiscal environment and an agile regulatory authority, the MGA, which plays a fundamental role in digitizing processes and encouraging compliance. However, the economic emphasis overrides the social dimension, limiting resources for addiction prevention and money laundering combat policies. Although it is an international licensing center, the country faces questions from the European Union regarding fiscal competition and transparency, indicating a challenge for the balance between attracting investments and social responsibility.

Brazil, in an initial stage of consolidation, made significant progress with the 2023 legal framework, which formalized sports betting and created a regulatory structure under the supervision of the Secretariat of Prizes and Betting (SPA). However, implementation still faces operational challenges, such as digital integration between tax authorities, the definition of state responsibilities, and companies’ adaptation to the new licensing regime. Brazil’s tax complexity and the multiplicity of accessory regulations still represent obstacles to the full regularization of the market, despite the great collection potential.

The efficiency in tax collection does not depend solely on the applied rate, but mainly on the structure and oversight of the system. In Malta, the model combines different instruments, such as the gaming tax levied on local revenues, which can reach approximately five percent of GGR, in addition to regulatory contributions and variable caps. This results in a relatively light, yet efficient system, supported by a high level of digitalization and the action of the MGA, which maintains strong control over operations, ensuring fiscal predictability and transparency.

In the United Kingdom, the fifteen percent incidence of General Betting Duty (GBD) on the Gross Gaming Yield (GGY) from sports betting does not prevent a good level of compliance. This effectiveness is attributed to the maturity of the regulatory system and the clarity of the rules. The integrated action of HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) with the UK Gambling Commission creates a predictable environment, allowing companies to operate with legal certainty, even in the face of a higher tax burden, which demonstrates that regulatory stability is a more determining factor than the rate itself.

In Brazil, the twelve percent GGR taxation model has brought greater predictability and reduced the scope for manipulation of the tax base, but revenue efficiency remains limited. This is mainly due to the transition from a historically informal market to a regulated environment, as well as integration difficulties between the systems of the Secretariat of Prizes and Betting, the Federal Revenue Service, and the operators themselves. The law’s design is clear, but its implementation faces practical obstacles, indicating that institutional stability, oversight capacity, and technology use are more decisive for the system’s success than the rate itself.

From the companies’ point of view, the Maltese model tends to be more attractive due to the limitation of direct tax incidence on global operations, which favors broader margins and encourages reinvestment in technology and expansion. The United Kingdom, in turn, offers predictability through clear rules and consistent oversight, allowing for long-term planning, even with a higher tax burden. In Brazil, operators face tighter margins due to taxation and the costs of adapting to the new regulatory framework, but the market size and expected growth continue to attract investments. The three countries reflect distinct stages of development: Brazil as an expanding market undergoing institutional adjustment, Malta as a competitive environment focused on attracting operators, and the United Kingdom as a balanced model, with consistent revenue collection, rigorous regulation, and high transparency.

Beyond fiscal aspects, the results show significant differences in responsible gaming policies. The United Kingdom leads in consumer protection, with strong action from the UK Gambling Commission and partner entities such as GamCare and GambleAware. The funding of these institutions is mandatory and proportional to the operators’ revenue, ensuring resources for addiction prevention and support for compulsive gamblers. Starting in April 2025, a mandatory statutory levy, with projected revenue of R$ 645 million (£ 100 million) annually, will be allocated to research, prevention, and treatment of problematic gambling, demonstrating a comprehensive and integrated system.

In Malta, responsible gaming policies are coordinated by the MGA through the Responsible Gaming Fund. However, companies’ contributions are voluntary and the scope of the programs is still limited. The country prioritizes technological integrity and the fight against money laundering, but does not present robust public health initiatives, which indicates an indirect fiscal contribution to responsible gaming. The MGA’s institutional structure is the main player, but voluntary funding limits the social impact of the policies.

In Brazil, Law No. 14.790/2023 established the mandatory allocation of part of the revenue to public security and sports, but there are still no specific mechanisms for preventing gambling addiction. The SPA and the Ministry of Finance are studying the creation of a national responsible gaming fund, inspired by the British model, which should strengthen the credibility of the Brazilian market in the coming years. Currently, the responsible gaming policy is in the implementation phase, with a project under development for the Responsible Gaming Fund, indicating an initial focus on social revenue.

The social maturity of regulation accompanies the degree of market consolidation, with the United Kingdom offering the most complete example of integration between taxation and social responsibility. Malta and Brazil still treat the subject in an ancillary manner. Another relevant axis observed in the case studies was the use of technology in fulfilling fiscal and regulatory obligations. In Malta and the United Kingdom, control platforms operate with real-time integration between operators and tax authorities. Companies transmit daily data on betting volume, winnings, and taxes due, eliminating oversight gaps, reducing audit costs, and increasing public transparency.

In Brazil, technological integration is organized on two complementary fronts: SIGAP (Betting Management System), a mandatory platform for transmitting data from operators to the regulator, and SINAPO (National Betting System), a federal cooperation arrangement coordinated by the SPA. By August 2025, approximately seventeen out of twenty-seven federative entities (about sixty-three percent) were already participating in the construction of SINAPO, which is still in the consolidation phase. The automation of collection and the traceability of operations are key elements for the collection efficiency observed in the United Kingdom and Malta, while digitalization in Brazil represents a central challenge and an opportunity for the evolution of the betting tax system.

The technological infrastructure and compliance in the three countries present notable differences. The United Kingdom has a centralized control system (HMRC and UKGC) with a total level of digital integration, a high degree of real-time fiscal automation, and mandatory independent auditing. Malta, with its MGA Digital Hub, also demonstrates total digital integration, a high degree of real-time fiscal automation, and mandatory auditing. Brazil, in turn, uses SIGAP and SINAPO in consolidation, with mandatory digital integration for SIGAP and in seventeen out of twenty-seven entities for SINAPO, presenting a medium degree of fiscal automation and planned, but not yet implemented, auditing.

From the results obtained, it was verified that the tax structure directly influences the competitive positioning of operators, with simpler and more predictable regimes attracting investments and stimulating formalization. Revenue efficiency does not depend exclusively on the tax rate, but on technological integration and regulatory stability. Brazil shows significant growth potential, but faces administrative and technological bottlenecks that reduce the effectiveness of the new fiscal model. The balance between revenue collection and social responsibility is a competitive differentiator, with the United Kingdom leading this integration, while Brazil is still structuring its public policy. International harmonization between fiscal systems and control mechanisms may become a global trend, especially given the advancement of transnational betting.

The main international best practices identified in the Maltese and British models, with potential for application to the Brazilian context, were systematized into two axes: governmental action and operator conduct. In the governmental axis, it is recommended to consolidate digital integration via SIGAP, establishing, by norm, deadlines and sanctions to ensure real-time data transmission and effective oversight, similar to the integrated action between HMRC and the UK Gambling Commission. Furthermore, it is crucial to institute periodic institutional accountability, with public disclosure of revenue by origin and destination of funds, increasing the model’s transparency. Finally, the regulation and funding of a national responsible gambling fund, along the lines of the British statutory levy, linking part of the revenue to the prevention and treatment of problem gambling, are essential to mitigate social harm.

On the operator side, recommendations include internally structuring robust tax compliance and integrity procedures, anticipating regulatory requirements. It is also essential to proactively adopt responsible gaming programs and self-exclusion tools, allocating minimal resources to prevention. The publication of periodic sustainability and social impact reports, connecting investments to measurable harm reduction results, completes the best practices for operators. The tax base on GGR is already implemented in Brazil, real-time digital integration (SIGAP) is being consolidated, public accountability for collection and allocation still needs to be structured, the national responsible gaming fund (levy) is being implemented, and corporate compliance and integrity are partial, as are responsible gaming and self-exclusion programs and sustainability and social impact reports, which are in their initial phase.

4. Conclusion

This study sought to compare the tax treatment of sports betting in Brazil, Malta, and the United Kingdom, identifying structural differences between their legal and fiscal models and pointing out international best practices for improving the Brazilian system. It was found that revenue efficiency did not depend solely on the tax rate, but on technological integration and regulatory stability. The Brazilian model, based on taxation of Gross Gaming Revenue (GGR), presented operational simplicity and lower risk of base manipulation, but faced competitiveness and adaptation challenges. Malta demonstrated a flexible model, with taxation on net operating revenue, attracting investments and promoting a digitized environment. The United Kingdom, in turn, exhibited a mature system, with high regulatory predictability, robust technological integration, and well-established responsible gaming policies, including a statutory levy. The integrated analysis revealed that institutional maturity, fiscal orientation, and the strategic positioning of each country are crucial for market development. The main contribution of this work lies in proposing a roadmap applicable to the improvement of the national model, with an emphasis on digital integration, transparency in accountability, and mitigation of social harms.

Despite the insights obtained, the study was restricted to the tax treatment and was based on secondary data, which limited the detail of financial information by country. For future investigations, it is recommended to analyze the sectoral economic effects, evaluate the effectiveness of responsible gaming policies in reducing harm, and monitor the implementation of the SIGAP and SINAPO systems in Brazil. These complementary approaches could deepen the understanding of the complex interaction between taxation, regulation, and social responsibility in the sports betting market.

Bibliographic References

BRASIL. Ministério da Fazenda. Nota à imprensa — arrecadação e regulação do mercado de apostas de quota fixa (2025). Brasília, DF: Ministério da Fazenda, 2025. Disponível em: https://www.gov.br/fazenda/pt-br/assuntos/noticias. Acesso em: 10 jan. 2026.

BRASIL. Ministério da Fazenda. Secretaria de Prêmios e Apostas (SPA). Página oficial — normas, autorizações e SIGAP. Brasília, DF: SPA/MF, 2025. Disponível em: https://www.gov.br/fazenda/pt-br/composicao/orgaos/secretaria-de-premios-e-apostas. Acesso em: 13 jan. 2026.

HM REVENUE & CUSTOMS (HMRC). UK Betting and Gaming Statistics. London: HMRC, 2025. Disponível em: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-betting-and-gaming-statistics. Acesso em: 20 dez. 2025.

MALTA GAMING AUTHORITY (MGA). Annual Report and Financial Statements 2024. St. Julian’s: MGA, 2025. Disponível em: https://www.mga.org.mt/mga-annual-reports/. Acesso em: 28 dez. 2025.

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD). Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2024. Disponível em: https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/. Acesso em: 4 jan. 2026.

Statista, 2025 [Referência completa não encontrada no documento original]

TIMES OF MALTA. The €1.5 billion question: is gambling still Malta’s best bet? Times of Malta, Valletta, out. 2025. Disponível em: https://timesofmalta.com/article/the-15-billion-question-is-gambling-still-malta-best-bet-a2.1117799. Acesso em: fev. 2026.

Article originating from the Final Course Work of the Specialization in Finance and Controllership of the MBA USP/Esalq

To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform