Prospects for exporting the model to other countries (Colombia)

Full article

1) What is the "Colombian model" and why they want to copy it

Colombia was one of the first in the region to build a full-fledged online framework: concession agreements with private operators, a single Coljuegos regulator, detailed technical regulations for games operated via the Internet, and a public "white list" of permitted brands. This set gave predictability to the market and a convenient "checklist" for copying.

• concession (contract) authorization instead of perpetual "forever licenses";
• technical standards of connection and reporting;
• mandatory responsible play practices and KYC/AML;
• open operator registers for player and business.

2) Where the model is already taking root: a brief map of the region

Peru. From 2022-2024 the country has launched its own comprehensive online framework: the law + the MINCETUR regulation, uniform rules for betting and iGaming, and even a unique requirement for domains. bet. pe is an example of how "Colombian" logic is adapted to its realities.

Brazil. After Law 14. 790/2023 and by-laws 2024-2025, the market switched to the model of preliminary authorization of the Ministry of Finance with tightening AML/advertising and active stripping of "gray" sites - this is functionally similar to the Coljuegos + law enforcement link.

Chile. The online market bill went through key stages and advanced in the Senate by August 2025; the goals - consumer protection and transparency of the origin of funds - correspond with the Colombian approach.

Mexico. The regime is being modernized: updates 2023-2025 strengthen control of online platforms (age verification, self-exclusion), striving to unify standards - a trend consonant with the "Colombian" set of WG tools.

Uruguay. The discussion about a full-fledged online framework has been resumed, while the legal sports book is still one (Supermatch) - a likely vector of reform - from a monopoly model to regulated competition modeled on Colombia.

Panama. Historically a separate system (JCJ, 1998 law), in 2022 updated for online modalities; here the idea of ​ ​ "single regulator + transparent standards" has already been implemented, which simplifies the borrowing of Colombian best practices in technology and WG.

3) What will have to be adapted when "exporting"

1. Tax architecture and channel shift. Rates for GGR and fixed contributions should be correlated with the goals of traffic sewerage in the "white" segment; "too many taxes on entry" pushes players offshore - a lesson many countries in the region already consider. (In Brazil and Chile, the focus is on a combination of taxation and consumer protection, rather than fiscal maximalism at all costs.)

2. Identification and payments. Colombia relies on massive local methods (bank gateways and wallets), which facilitates KYC and limit control; countries with less financial inclusion will need more "bridges" to cash and fintech wallets. (Peru decides this with the norm about the local domain and the provider's hard visibility.)

3. Enforcement and coordination. The Colombian practice of "blocking illegal immigrants + public register" requires coordinated work with the telecom regulator/Ministry of Justice/platforms. Brazil is already following the same path, blocking thousands of irregular domains.

4. Local "features": sports integration agenda, advertising, protection of minors, e-sports/fantasy - all this should be formalized in local laws, as Chile and Brazil do.

4) Strengths of the model for importing countries

Predictability for an investor: contractual terms and understandable requirements reduce regulatory risk.

Transparency for the player: "white lists" and uniform standards of the WG increase trust and sewerage.

Interoperability: Coljuegos' technical requirements are close to EU/ISO best practices, easier to reconfigure than write from scratch.

5) Risks of one-to-one copying

Distortion of fiscal design (too high fees at the start) - sewage failure and growth of the gray market. The example of Brazil shows that in parallel with the launch of authorizations, an active sweep and a tough advertising policy are needed.

Underestimating the local legal tradition (federal/provincial competencies as in Mexico) is the risk of collisions and "regulatory shopping."

Payment "nodes" - without mass local methods or fintech wallets, CUS/WG tools work worse. (Peru solves this with a bundle of domain and strict operator visibility.)

6) Step-by-step "export package" for the regulator

1. Law + by-law: determine Internet modality, subject of concession, terms, rights to operate, WG/AML and technical requirements (including reporting and audit).

2. Open registry: launching a "white list" with clickable domains/brands.

3. Enforcement by design: memoranda with telecom and financial regulators, quick blocking/penalty procedures.

4. Payment infrastructure: mandatory localization of settlements, integration with leading wallets/gateways, hard KYC.

5. WP package: self-exclusion, limits, age filters, advertising standards and markers for esports/fantasy.

6. Market test: phased authorization windows (as in Brazil) and monitoring of sewerage/tax revenues with quick adjustments.

The Colombian model is a ready-made designer for the LatAm countries: concessions, technical regulations, registries and proactive enforcement. The experience of Peru, Brazil and the promotion of Chile show that key blocks are already successfully "ported" - provided that the fiscal and payment architecture is adapted to local characteristics, as well as strong coordination of regulators. For Mexico, Uruguay and Panama, the window of opportunity is also open: exporting this logic can accelerate the "whitewashing" of the market, increase consumer protection and make budget revenues stable.