Why did a Kazakh brand receive the first license in Uzbekistan instead of a local company?

A question that arises naturally

On July 31, 2026, the National Agency for Project Management of the Republic of Uzbekistan issued the first-ever license for bookmaker activities in the country.

It was not a local startup that received it, but Olimpbet — a brand with many years of experience in the markets of Kazakhstan and Russia.

At first glance, this may seem strange. Uzbekistan spent almost a year and a half building a regulatory framework for legal operators to enter the market, but the first licensee was not a new Uzbek bookmaker, but an international regional brand.

However, upon closer examination, this outcome appears not as an exception, but as a logical consequence of the requirements set by the NAPM.

A brief answer

The law does not provide foreign brands with formal advantages. A local company could theoretically have obtained the first license under the same conditions.

However, it is much easier for a mature operator, who already possesses the technologies, financial reserves, and experience in passing such checks, to meet the regulator's requirements.

Formally, Olimpbet.uz is an Uzbek company

To understand the situation correctly, it is important to distinguish between the brand and the legal entity that directly obtains the license.

The NAPM's regulations on licensing bookmaker activities require that the operator be a legal entity - a resident of the Republic of Uzbekistan.

The electronic platform must also comply with local technical requirements, and the infrastructure provided by law must be located within the country.

This means that the Kazakh or Russian legal entity Olimpbet could not obtain an Uzbek license directly.

To enter the market, the brand needed to create or utilize a separate local structure registered in Uzbekistan.

Thus, the assertion that a "foreign company" received the license is not entirely accurate.

Formally, the operator is an Uzbek legal entity, but it uses the brand, technologies, competencies, and management experience of an international group.

This is a standard model for a large operator entering a new regulated market.

Why a local startup was not the first

The reason lies not in the discrimination against local entrepreneurs, but in the high entry threshold set by the regulator.

A bookmaker company is not just a website, a mobile application, and a betting line.

The operator needs significant capital, a reserve for paying out winnings, a secure technical platform, an identification system, financial monitoring, risk analytics, payment infrastructure, and customer support.

For a company that is just being established, each of these elements has to be built almost from scratch.

For an experienced operator, a significant portion of the processes already exists: they need to be localized and adapted, rather than developed anew.

International operator vs local startup

This is why, under the same formal rules, an experienced operator has an objective practical advantage.

They prepare documents faster, more easily confirm financial stability, and can show the regulator how their systems already operate in other licensed markets.

Why the requirements were set so high

The high entry threshold is not a random mistake or an attempt to allow only large foreign brands into the market.

The regulator needed to address several tasks at once:

• to prevent operators without sufficient capital;
• to reduce the risk of non-payment of large winnings;
• to ensure player identification;
• to control the movement of funds;
• to prevent the participation of prohibited categories of citizens;
• to ensure the storage and protection of user data;
• to create a mechanism for state oversight;
• to separate the legal market from offshore platforms.

If licenses were issued to small companies without technical infrastructure and financial reserves, the first major dispute or delay in payment could undermine trust in the entire new market.

Therefore, it was more important for the state to have a stable first licensee than to ensure a symbolic victory for a new local company.

Why Olimpbet was ready earlier than others

Olimpbet was already operating in regulated jurisdictions in the region and was familiar with the requirements typically imposed on legal bookmakers.

By the time it entered the Uzbekistan market, the brand already had:

• a ready technological platform;
• a sports line and LIVE section;
• a risk management system;
• client identification procedures;
• financial monitoring tools;
• experience working with government regulators;
• a support service;
• mobile infrastructure;
• regional brand recognition;
• the ability to finance a local launch.

As a result, the company did not need to create a betting product from scratch.

The main task became localizing the existing infrastructure to meet the requirements of the NAPP, Uzbek legislation, local payment methods, and user identification rules.

This does not mean that local businesses were excluded

A Uzbek company could have applied and obtained a license first if it had met all the established requirements.

The law does not stipulate that an international brand has priority over a local entrepreneur.

However, legal equality does not mean equality of opportunity.

A large group has more capital, experience, technology, and specialists, making it easier for them to navigate the complex procedure.

In the future, local companies can enter the market in several ways:

• create their own betting platform;
• purchase a ready-made technological solution;
• enter into a contract with a sports line provider;
• attract a strategic investor;
• create a joint venture with an experienced operator;
• operate under an international brand through a local legal entity.

Precedent is more important than a specific name

For the further development of the market, what matters is not that Olimpbet was the first, but that the licensing mechanism has finally worked in practice.

Until July 31, 2026, no potential applicant had a public example of successfully completing the entire procedure: from creating a local legal entity to the actual launch of the platform.

Now such an example has emerged.

This reduces uncertainty for other companies that previously considered the Uzbek market but delayed investments due to the lack of actually issued licenses.

What this means for other bookmakers

The emergence of the first licensee may signal to other large operators interested in the Uzbekistan audience.

Now potential participants understand that licensing is not merely a theoretical mechanism.

With sufficient capital, technology, and local structure, permission can indeed be obtained.

This may lead to:

• the emergence of new applications;
• increased competition among operators;
• the development of local payment integrations;
• the expansion of bonus programs;
• improved odds;
• the creation of new jobs;
• the establishment of joint ventures;
• increased interest from investors.

Should we expect local Uzbek bookmakers?

Most likely, local projects will emerge over time.

However, these will not necessarily be completely independent startups developing all infrastructure from scratch.

Several models are more realistic:

As the market develops, it will be easier for local entrepreneurs to assess real costs, timelines, risks, and potential project profitability.

What this means for players

For the average user, the origin of the parent brand is less important than the legal status of the specific platform.

The key point is that Olimpbet.uz:

• operates through a local legal entity;
• has obtained a NAPP license;
• is subject to Uzbekistan's legislation;
• uses a local domain;
• is required to identify users;
• must comply with payment requirements;
• can integrate with local payment systems;
• is under state oversight.

A well-known international brand does not replace a license.

But in this case, the brand operates through a local structure that has received official permission.

What this says about the logic of regulation in Uzbekistan

The first issued license shows that the NAPP chose not a model of rapid mass admission, but a cautious market launch through financially and technically prepared operators.

The main priority is not the number of bookmakers, but the controllability of the system.

The regulator needs to understand:

• who owns the operator;
• where the infrastructure is located;
• how payments are processed;
• how users are identified;
• how reserves are formed;
• how suspicious operations are prevented;
• how restrictions for certain categories of citizens are enforced;
• how disputes and complaints will be resolved.

The emergence of the first major licensee with a mature infrastructure aligns with the overall logic of cautiously opening the market.

Conclusion

The first license for Olimpbet does not mean that Uzbekistan has provided special advantages to a foreign company.

The license was obtained by a local Uzbek entity that operates under an international brand and utilizes the experience of a mature regional operator.

The main reason Olimpbet became the first is the combination of capital, ready technologies, a team, AML/KYC procedures, and experience in obtaining licenses in other regulated markets.

For a new local startup, the same requirements are formally available, but in practice, they are much more complex and expensive to fulfill.

Thus, the first license for an international brand is not an exception but the most anticipated scenario for a newly opening market.

For the regulator, it was more important to have a stable and predictable first licensee than to ensure a symbolic victory for a company with an exclusively local brand.

The most significant event is not the origin of Olimpbet, but that the licensing mechanism has transitioned from regulatory documents to a functioning practice.

Now the path is open for other international operators as well as for future local Uzbek projects.

Frequently Asked Questions