Brazil’s SPA-MF weighs 11 regulatory points for sports betting suppliers as 85 operators seek cleaner certification rules

The Secretariat of Prizes and Betting (SPA) at Brazil’s Ministry of Finance held a public hearing on Thursday (25) to discuss how to recognize the technical and operational capacity of service providers for fixed-odds betting operators. For high-risk PSPs and their partners, the important bit is simple: Brazil is trying to standardize who can supply the licensed market, while pushing suppliers to stay out of the illegal one.

1. The hearing followed Consultation SPA-MF No. 01/2026, which closed in March, after the draft ordinance drew 40 individual contributions and more than 400 comments between 4 February and 23 March 2026 on the Brasil Participativo portal. The most contested sections were Preliminary Provisions, Supplier Duties, and the procedure for requesting recognition of technical capacity.
2. According to Deputy Secretary Fabio Augusto Macorin, the regulation has three goals: fight the illegal market, supervise and share responsibility with suppliers under the regulatory policy, and reduce duplicate certification work across the 85 operators currently authorized in Brazil.
3. Leandro dos Reis Lucchesi, General Coordinator of Regulation at SPA-MF, said the ministry is not looking at industrial policy for iGaming, tax issues, or intervention in private disputes between companies. The point, in his framing, is that suppliers should work exclusively with the legalized market and become part of the enforcement chain against illegal activity.
4. The draft covers five supplier categories: game providers, including online studios and aggregators; betting platform and systems providers; sports data providers, including odds and sportsbook services; KYC providers, including customer identification and qualification, facial recognition, and geolocation; and certification laboratories. A sixth category, Remote Game Server (RGS), was dropped during the process after SPA concluded that the service is performed by the game providers themselves and does not need separate recognition.
5. The hearing was built around 11 specific topics chosen by SPA-MF from the comments it received. The text provided here cuts off before those topics are listed, but the structure itself matters: SPA is not debating the existence of supplier oversight anymore, only the mechanics of how recognition will work.