Leading in the markets we enter requires adapting to local needs rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach

Amid the discussions and deal-making at BiS SiGMA South America in São Paulo, one of the key themes on the agenda was how regulation, technology, and market realities are reshaping the local betting landscape. As Brazil continues to navigate its early stages as a regulated market, industry voices are increasingly focused on balancing growth with sustainability.

In this context, Yogonet spoke with Simon Westbury, Strategic Advisor at 1xBet, who shared his insights on the importance of collaboration with regulators, the risks of overregulation, and the evolving role of player protection and education. The conversation also touched on global operational challenges and emerging trends such as prediction markets, offering a broader view of where the industry may be headed.

Last time we spoke, you mentioned that collaboration is always the best approach to regulation. Do you have any concrete examples of markets or regulators where you’ve seen this work well?

We’re always in contact with regulators, although we have to be careful not to be seen as influencing them unduly. They have their own role to play.

In terms of examples, Brazil is a good case right now. The current regulatory framework is actually quite effective, and that’s largely because the industry and the government have established a constructive dialogue.

The challenge comes as the market evolves. As we’ve seen in Western Europe, regulation tends to become more stringent over time. In Brazil, we’re already seeing discussions around banning sponsorships, increasing taxes, and even introducing a tax on bets.

That becomes problematic because offshore operators don’t face the same constraints. Influencers, for example, are a key tool for the offshore market, promoting better odds compared to regulated operators. So if licensed operators face restrictions on sponsorships and influencers while offshore operators don’t, it creates an uneven playing field.

Taxation is another issue. We understand that taxes are part of the business, but when they reach the high 20s or low 30 percent range, it becomes very challenging for regulated operators to compete. So Brazil is a strong example of collaboration, but there are concerns about where regulation might go next.

Based on that, would you say Brazil could serve as a benchmark for other markets?

It can, to an extent. We called it a “honeymoon period” last time we spoke. There are definitely lessons to be learned, especially around player protection, which is well embedded in the regulation.

That said, every regulatory framework has to fit its specific market. It’s similar to our product strategy: we operate globally, but what we offer in Brazil is different from Africa or Western Europe.

So rather than a single benchmark, I’d say there are elements that can be adapted. Player protection is one of them. In some markets, it’s still largely left to operators, and as an industry, we haven’t always done that well. Having clearer, standardized definitions of player protection would help.

There are also positive trends in Latin America. In the International Player Safety Index for the region, we found 69% of operators use real-time monitoring, 34% use AI—which is higher than in Western Europe—and KYC levels are around 84%, also leading globally.

Overall, there’s a lot of progress, but the key is avoiding a scenario where regulation becomes overly focused on taxation and pushes players toward offshore markets.

In Brazil, there’s also a challenge in changing public perception of the gambling industry, especially since there isn’t a strong land-based tradition. Do you think an emphasis on player protection can help position the industry as safe and responsible?

Changing public perception is always difficult. One of the main challenges is that, in most cases, players are betting against the house, which naturally creates a sense that the system is unfair.

Player protection is important, but it’s only part of the solution. Its role is to create a safe and enjoyable environment. The bigger issue is that many players see gambling as a way to make money rather than as entertainment.

That’s where education comes in. The tools exist—self-exclusion, intervention systems—but without proper education, they’re not enough.

This needs to happen at multiple levels: educating society, engaging with regulators, and maintaining dialogue with governments. Regulation flows from the government to regulators, and then to operators and players. For the system to work, everyone needs to understand their role in creating a safe and sustainable environment.

Given that 1xBet operates in many countries, how do you balance compliance across very different regulatory frameworks?

Every market has its own regulation, and it has to be that way. There may be shared principles, but each framework needs to reflect local conditions.

From our side, we rely on local teams in every market. While we have a global strategy, we also need local expertise to understand and apply regulations correctly, interact with regulators, and ensure full compliance. That local presence is essential to operating effectively in different jurisdictions.

Beyond having local teams, what would you say differentiates your company in such a competitive industry?

Like any company, we aim to lead in every market we enter, but that requires adapting to local needs rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach.

We combine a strong global product—sportsbook and casino—with personalization, digital acquisition channels like SEO and affiliates, CRM tools, and, where allowed, sponsorships and influencers.

On top of that, player protection is a core element, ensuring the experience is both safe and enjoyable.

Global experience can be a disadvantage if it leads to rigid thinking, but we see it as a strength. We take insights from different markets and apply them in a way that fits local conditions.

There’s a growing debate around prediction markets, particularly in the U.S., and now also in Brazil. Do you think they should be regulated as gambling or as a separate category?

Prediction markets are interesting because players are competing against each other rather than against the house, so they’re not purely RNG-based.

However, some of the recent examples I’ve seen are quite distasteful, and that’s not good for the industry. We have to be careful about operating in gray areas or pushing boundaries too far just for short-term gains. In my view, self-regulation and common sense are better than forcing regulators to step in with overly strict rules.

I don’t think prediction markets can be classified purely as gambling, but they clearly share many characteristics with it. That’s why I believe they should be regulated in some form.

Right now, much of the discussion is about whether they are legal or not. If they were regulated properly, that uncertainty would disappear, and they could become a more stable and credible product.