The number of gambling licenses in Malta is declining, but the sector's center of gravity is shifting. B2B providers now account for 55.5% of the entire MGA license base, and the most recent licensing data shows the trend accelerating: of the 38 new gaming license applications the MGA received in 2025, 24 were B2B. Of the 19 licenses actually issued, 12 went to B2B applicants.
The balance of activity under the Malta Gaming Authority is moving firmly toward suppliers of platforms, games, and technical infrastructure — a shift that changes what Malta's gaming hub actually looks like, even as the overall number of licensees continues to shrink.
B2B Overtakes B2C in the Application Pipeline
The MGA's own data shows the direction clearly. In 2025, B2B applications made up nearly two-thirds of all new license requests, and B2B licenses made up almost two-thirds of everything the regulator actually granted. This follows a pattern already visible in the MGA's interim reporting for the first half of 2025, when 64.3% of new applications and 87.5% of licenses granted were B2B.
The MGA has been careful not to frame this as a deliberate policy outcome. A spokesperson for the authority described it as market-driven: operator restructuring and global regulatory developments are shaping where businesses choose to license different parts of their operations, and "the composition of the license base reflects market behavior" rather than regulatory design.
Between H1 2022 and H1 2025, the total number of licenses fell by 51 (from 363 to 312), and the number of licensed companies fell by 53 (from 357 to 304) — a decline of roughly 14–15% over the period. Fewer companies now hold Malta licenses, but a larger share of them are B2B suppliers rather than player-facing operators.
Why Capital Requirements Matter for the Decision
The choice between a B2C and a B2B license in Malta is not just about business model — it carries a direct capital and cost difference.
B2C Gaming Service Licenses require different minimum share capital depending on the game type. Type 1 (casino games run against the house) and Type 2 (fixed-odds betting) require a minimum of EUR 100,000. Type 3 (peer-to-peer games such as poker) and Type 4 (skill games and fantasy sports) sit at a lower tier: EUR 40,000.
The B2B Critical Gaming Supply License requires the same EUR 40,000 minimum as Type 3 and Type 4 — it is not a separate, lower, or higher tier, but the same capital floor that applies to the less player-exposed B2C categories. Where B2B licensing differs is in what happens afterward: B2B licensees fall outside the scope of Malta's gaming tax and compliance contribution (since they generate no player-facing gaming revenue), and they are not subject persons under Malta's AML regime, unlike B2C operators. The MGA's Capital Requirements Policy also requires B2B licensees to restore a negative equity position once it exceeds EUR 3,000,000, an ongoing solvency obligation layered on top of the initial capital requirement.
For a supplier weighing whether to structure as a B2B Critical Gaming Supply licensee or bundle B2B activity into a broader B2C setup, the capital floor is the same as the lighter B2C categories, but the tax, AML, and compliance-contribution exposure differ substantially. For a full breakdown of both license categories, the four game types, and current capital and fee tables, see our guide Malta Gaming License in 2026: B2C, B2B and the Four Game Types.
What the Shift Means for Suppliers Entering the Market
For companies providing gaming platforms, software, or technical infrastructure, the practical takeaway is that Malta's regulatory posture toward B2B suppliers has matured. The MGA points to its 2018 Gaming Act overhaul as the structural foundation, arguing that a clearer, more proportionate authorization framework made Malta a natural base for high-value B2B suppliers rather than only player-facing brands.
The regulator also frames the shift in risk terms: B2B activity, by definition, involves no direct interaction with players, which the MGA describes as a "lower risk profile" relative to B2C operations. That does not translate into lighter oversight. Governance, AML/CFT responsibilities, outsourcing and dependency risk, and operational resilience remain the MGA's core supervisory focus regardless of license type.
With most of the world's largest online gambling companies already licensed in Malta, the jurisdiction offers B2B suppliers an existing client base without requiring a separate B2C presence — what the MGA describes as an "immediate, integrated market" for platform, game, and payment infrastructure providers.
Companies evaluating a Malta license — whether B2C, B2B, or both — can review the current capital, fee, and application requirements on our Malta Gaming Authority licensing page.
Need Help With Licensing?
Equilex supports iGaming companies with MGA license applications, capital structuring, and regulatory submissions for both B2C and B2B categories. Complete the contact form on our website, and a regulatory specialist will respond within 24 hours.
FAQ
Why are more companies applying for B2B licenses in Malta than B2C?
B2B applications now outnumber B2C applications because suppliers of platforms, software, and technical infrastructure can serve Malta's existing base of licensed operators without building a player-facing brand. In 2025, B2B accounted for 24 of the MGA's 38 new license applications and 12 of the 19 licenses issued.
What is the minimum share capital for a Malta B2B license?
A B2B Critical Gaming Supply License requires a minimum share capital of EUR 40,000, the same floor that applies to B2C Type 3 and Type 4 licenses. B2C Type 1 and Type 2 licenses require a higher minimum of EUR 100,000.
Does a B2B license cost less than a B2C license overall?
The initial capital requirement is the same as the lower B2C tier, but the ongoing cost structure differs. B2B licensees fall outside Malta's gaming tax and compliance contribution, since they generate no player-facing gaming revenue, and they are not subject persons under Malta's AML regime.
Are B2B licensees subject to less regulatory oversight than B2C operators?
No. The MGA treats B2B activity as lower risk because it involves no direct player interaction, but governance, AML/CFT obligations, outsourcing and dependency risk, and operational resilience remain the same supervisory priorities for both license types.
What ongoing capital obligations apply to B2B licensees?
Under the MGA's Capital Requirements Policy, a B2B licensee must restore a negative equity position once it exceeds EUR 3,000,000. This is an ongoing solvency requirement separate from the initial share capital at authorization.
