A thematic analysis of contributions to Consulta Pública SPA/MF nº 1/2026
Background
Brazil’s Secretariat of Prizes and Betting (SPA/MF) opened a public consultation on the recognition of B2B service providers for fixed-odds betting operators. The draft sets out supplier categories, recognition requirements, and operational obligations.
The consultation itself is widely seen as a positive step. It brought input from across the ecosystem — law firms, operators, technology providers, game studios, KYC companies, sports data providers, and industry associations.
This article summarizes the main themes raised, from most to least frequent.
1. “Integrated supply” — the main point of debate
The definition of “integrated supply” and its link to “economic group” (Art. 2(V)) was the most discussed issue.
The draft ties integrated supply strictly to corporate group structures. This leaves out exclusive suppliers that serve a single operator without a corporate link.
Several contributors flagged this as a source of legal uncertainty.
Stakeholders broadly support adopting a functional, rather than purely corporate, criterion to define integrated supply, including exclusive contractual relationships.
2. Supplier categories — scope and clarity
The draft defines five supplier categories, but several points remain unclear.
KYC providers.
The definition is too broad, covering very different services (biometrics, document checks, risk analysis). Contributors ask for clearer boundaries and possibly differentiated requirements.
Sports data providers.
Views diverge on whether this category should be maintained.
Those advocating removal argue that sports data is typically a commoditized input, widely available from multiple providers—including official leagues, aggregators, and independent suppliers. In this view, it is not a core component of betting infrastructure, and applying the same recognition regime as for betting systems or platforms is disproportionate.
Those supporting retention emphasize the importance of sports data for sports integrity, arguing that regulatory oversight may be justified to prevent manipulation risks.
Aggregators.
Aggregators represent a major gap in the draft. The regulation does not define them or clarify whether they are subject to recognition, which category they fall under, or how liability is allocated between aggregators and underlying game providers. The consistent recommendation is to explicitly define aggregators and clearly allocate responsibilities across the supply chain.
Additional categories.
Some propose adding categories such as anti-fraud, payments, compliance services to avoid future regulatory gaps.
3. Differentiated treatment across supplier types
A recurring argument is that a uniform recognition regime may not be appropriate for all suppliers.
Core providers (systems, platforms, game providers) are deeply embedded in operations and may justify stricter requirements.
By contrast, services like KYC and sports data operate globally across multiple markets. Applying the same rules across the board is seen as disproportionate.
4. Documentary requirements — flexibility needed
Foreign suppliers flagged the current documentary requirements as overly rigid. Sworn translations under Brazilian law are seen as costly and time-consuming, particularly when combined with apostille or legalization steps, leading to calls for the acceptance of certified translations or bilingual documents.
Similarly, limiting digital signatures to ICP-Brasil standards creates practical challenges for international providers, who instead advocate for the recognition of widely used global tools such as DocuSign.
The requirement for contracts to be in Portuguese was also viewed as burdensome, with contributors suggesting that agreements in English or other languages be accepted, subject to translation upon request.
5. Brazilian entity requirement
The draft requires foreign suppliers to set up a Brazilian entity.
While local incorporation is generally accepted for core suppliers closely integrated into operations, many stakeholders view it as disproportionate for globally operating service providers, particularly KYC and sports data suppliers.
Several also point out that Brazil’s existing framework for international legal cooperation could support the recognition of foreign suppliers without requiring local incorporation.
The prevailing proposal is to allow foreign suppliers to operate through a local representative or legal agent, instead of requiring full local incorporation in all cases.
6. Defined timeframes for recognition decisions
Several contributions highlighted the absence of clear deadlines for SPA/MF to issue recognition decisions. While the draft specifies what suppliers must submit, it does not indicate how long the review process should take, creating uncertainty for market entry and planning. Contributors recommend establishing defined timeframes, along with mechanisms such as mandatory responses or consequences if deadlines are not met.
7. Publication of technical requirements
The draft outlines the recognition framework but does not specify the technical and operational requirements suppliers must meet. Contributors noted that compliance planning is difficult without this information and suggested that such requirements be published before implementation, or at least with sufficient lead time. Some also propose a separate consultation focused specifically on technical criteria.
8. Public registry of suppliers
Stakeholders support the creation of a public registry of recognized suppliers, maintained by SPA/MF. Such a registry would improve transparency, facilitate due diligence for operators, and support enforcement. Contributors suggest including information on the scope of recognition, validity periods, and any applicable limitations.
9. Confidentiality of submitted information
Several contributions raised concerns about the protection of commercially sensitive information submitted during the recognition process. The draft does not clearly address confidentiality safeguards, despite the sensitivity of technical, financial, and contractual data involved. Contributors recommend including explicit provisions to protect such information and define the conditions under which it may be disclosed
10. Game registration — simplification and adequacy
Contributions emphasize that the current game registration process is overly burdensome, requiring per-game, per-operator approval letters and creating significant duplication. The draft does not address this issue and may introduce additional overlap with existing requirements. Stakeholders therefore advocate for a simplified, metadata-based registration system and the recognition of international certifications without requiring re-certification in Brazil.