Georgia Eyes New Gambling License for Foreign Players

Georgia parliament is moving to create a new class of gambling license designed exclusively for foreign players. The draft legislation would allow international operators to set up in Georgia and run platforms aimed at customers outside its borders, all at a fraction of the tax rate that applies to domestic gambling services. It is a model built to attract foreign investment without expanding access for Georgian citizens, and it could reshape how operators think about Georgia as a base of operations.

What the Draft Legislation Proposes

The bill, submitted for expedited parliamentary consideration, adds three new permit categories under Georgia’s existing gambling law. They cover online casino games, slot machine games, and sports betting, each restricted to international customers. Only foreign citizens and stateless persons would be eligible to participate. Georgian nationals remain locked out entirely.

The financial structure is one of the more striking elements. Operators holding the new Georgia gambling license would pay a monthly tax of 5% on gross gaming revenue, calculated as the difference between bets received and winnings paid out. Standard online casino operators serving Georgian players currently pay 20% GGR. That is a significant gap, and it signals clearly what this proposal is trying to do: make Georgia an attractive base for operators whose player base sits elsewhere.

Each permit runs for five years, with an annual fee of GEL 100,000. Operators that breach conditions or miss payment deadlines face a GEL 20,000 fine. The draft also proposes cutting the number of internet domains allowed under a single permit from two to one.

The Investment Rationale

Five MPs introduced the bill: Shota Berekashvili, Giorgi Barvenashvili, Tornike Berekashvili, Anton Obolashvili, and Mariam Lashkhi. Their explanatory note frames the initiative as an economic development measure. The stated goals are attracting foreign direct investment, creating jobs in IT, marketing, and cybersecurity, and generating additional state revenue.

The dual-rate approach is not entirely new to Georgian regulatory thinking. Georgia already applies a 5% GGR rate on income derived from foreign players under its existing online gambling framework. What changes with this proposal is the creation of a dedicated permit category built around that logic. Previously, international player revenue was handled as a subset of a standard license. Now it would have its own formal track, with its own rules and obligations.

Georgia’s Wider Gambling Stance

The proposal fits within a broader pattern in how Georgia has handled gambling regulation in recent years. The government has taken an increasingly restrictive line on domestic participation. Gambling age limits were raised to 25, among the highest thresholds in Eastern Europe. A national exclusion registry now covers around 1.5 million citizens barred from gambling. The political direction has been consistent: limit gambling’s reach inside Georgian society while keeping it available as a revenue and tourism tool.

A framework that lets licensed operators run internationally-facing platforms from Georgian infrastructure fits that logic neatly. Georgian citizens are blocked from access. The economic activity stays on Georgian soil. It adds revenue without adding domestic gambling exposure. Whether international operators find the terms attractive enough to actually set up here is a separate question, and one the market will answer if the bill passes.

What Comes Next

The bill’s expedited submission suggests the MPs behind it expect swift movement. No implementation timeline has been announced yet. If it passes, Georgia would join a small number of jurisdictions running separate licensing tracks for domestic and international operators, each with distinct tax rates and obligations.

For foreign gambling companies, the 5% GGR rate will draw attention. Georgia’s existing legal infrastructure for gambling gives the proposal more credibility than a jurisdiction starting from scratch. The full package still needs scrutiny. The fee structure, the domain restrictions, and the operational requirements all factor into whether this becomes a genuine alternative for operators looking at international licensing options.