The Philippine gaming industry has undergone significant transformation in recent years, gradually shifting from the traditional offshore gaming operator (POGO) model to the domestic-oriented Philippine Inland Gaming Operator (PIGO) system.
PASA will comprehensively analyze the development history, application process details, current market status, and future trends of the PIGO licensing system, helping readers to deeply understand this emerging Philippine gaming regulatory framework.
Starting from the policy background of PIGO's emergence, this article will interpret the specific requirements and procedures for license applications, analyze the market performance of current licensees, explore the key differences between PIGO and POGO, and make forward-looking judgments on the future development of this industry.
Origin and Policy Background of the PIGO Licensing System
The birth of the Philippine Inland Gaming Operator (PIGO) licensing system directly stems from a major shift in the Philippine government's regulatory approach to the gaming industry.
In July 2024, Philippine President Marcos Jr. announced in his State of the Nation Address that the offshore gaming operator (POGO) industry would be completely banned by December of the same year, marking a new phase in Philippine gaming policy.
The POGO ban is backed by several years of social security issues, money laundering risks, and diplomatic frictions with China. However, the gaming industry's status as a significant source of government revenue has not changed, and it is in this context that PIGO emerged as an alternative solution.
The fundamental difference between PIGO (Philippine In-Gaming Operator) and POGO (Philippine Offshore Gaming Operator) lies in the different target clients.
According to the explanation by the Philippine Senate President, "The clients of the offshore gaming industry are foreign gamblers, while the clients of the Philippine inland online gaming companies are Filipino citizens." This shift has changed the source of gaming tax revenue from foreign exchange income to domestic capital flow, also shifting the regulatory focus from cross-border to domestic consumer protection.
The Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), as the main regulatory body, quickly introduced the PIGO license framework following the POGO ban announcement. Unlike POGO, which primarily offered live dealer casino games, PIGO's business focus is explicitly limited to online electronic table games.
This design considers the convenience of technical regulation and responds to societal concerns about the negative impacts of live gambling. Notably, there is no upper limit set for the number of gambling machines under the PIGO license, providing room for market expansion.
PIGO License Application Process and Key Requirements
Obtaining a PIGO license is a rigorous multi-stage process involving qualification review, financial examination, and operational compliance assessments. According to the latest regulations published by the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), enterprises applying for a PIGO license must meet the following core conditions:
In terms of capital requirements, the applicant company must demonstrate sufficient financial strength. Although the specific amount has not been disclosed, based on the experience during the POGO era, it generally requires millions of dollars in registered capital. Additionally, applicants must also pay a performance bond of 75 million pesos (about 1.5 million USD), which will serve as a guarantee for compliance with regulatory standards.
Technical compliance is another critical threshold. PIGO operators must establish an online gaming platform that meets PAGCOR standards, including player identity verification systems, age restriction mechanisms, Responsible Gaming tools, and anti-money laundering monitoring systems. The platform must also pass a third-party technical audit to ensure game fairness and data security. Unlike POGO, PIGO platforms must be hosted on servers located within the Philippines to enable real-time monitoring by regulatory authorities.
The application process typically includes the following stages:
Preliminary review stage: Submission of company registration documents, shareholder background checks, business plans, and other basic materials;
Technical assessment: Platform demonstration and security testing, usually taking 3-6 months;
Financial review: Source of funds verification and tax compliance checks;
Final approval: Decision by the PAGCOR board of directors on whether to grant the license.
As of early 2025, three large integrated resort operators have obtained PIGO licenses, namely Solaire Resort & Casino, Resorts World Manila, and Okada Manila. These licensed operators are allowed to offer online gaming services to existing members, but the service range is limited to electronic table games and slot machines.
Current Market Status and Performance of Major PIGO Operators
Although the PIGO market is relatively new, it has shown strong growth momentum. According to industry data, the annual replacement volume of gambling machines under the PIGO model has increased from about 1,500 units in 2019 to currently 2,500 units, with expectations to further increase to 4,000 units in the coming years. This growth trend is partly due to the policy of not setting an upper limit on the number of gambling machines under the PIGO license, creating significant business opportunities for equipment suppliers.
In terms of operator performance, integrated resorts with PIGO licenses have shown outstanding results. For example, RGB Company, as the exclusive Southeast Asian agent for Aristocrat and Scientific Games, two major gambling machine brands, delivered 1,200 gambling machines in the first quarter of 2024, most of which were supplied to the Philippine market.
The company's management is confident, expecting the annual delivery volume to exceed 4,200 units, far surpassing the 4,000 units achieved in 2023. The capital market has also responded positively to the prospects of PIGO, with RGB's stock price having risen by more than 60% since 2024.
The revenue contribution of PIGO has begun to emerge. It is estimated that just from online cockfighting gambling (e-sabong), PAGCOR can generate monthly revenue of 250 million to 350 million pesos.
Although this figure is not yet comparable to the scale of POGO at its peak, considering that PIGO mainly targets the domestic market, its growth potential and stability are more promising.
The Philippine state-owned gaming regulatory agency (PAGCOR) plans to complete the privatization of all 41 casinos by 2025, further stimulating the demand for high-end gambling machines and acting as a catalyst for PIGO's development. It is worth noting that PIGO's development also faces some challenges.
Senate President Isko Moreno has publicly questioned: "How much revenue do these gaming businesses actually bring to the government? Is the Philippine inland online gaming industry really worth continuing?" He is concerned that PIGO might repeat the problems of POGO, only changing the victims from foreigners to Filipino citizens, especially those in low-income groups. This policy controversy could potentially affect PIGO's regulatory environment in the future.
Regulatory Differences and Social Impact of PIGO and POGO
The establishment of the PIGO system marks a significant shift in the Philippine gaming regulatory philosophy, with fundamental differences in regulatory design compared to POGO. The most notable difference is in the geographical targeting of service objects: POGO targets overseas customers (mainly Chinese players), while PIGO specifically serves Filipino domestic players. This shift internalizes the impact of gambling activities entirely within Philippine society, bringing new regulatory challenges.
In terms of game type restrictions, PIGO is explicitly prohibited from offering live dealer casino games and can only operate automated products such as electronic table games and slot machines.
This restriction is intended to reduce the social nature and immersion of gambling, thereby reducing the incidence of problem gambling. In contrast, POGO primarily featured live video gambling, which is considered more likely to lead to addiction.
The taxation model has also undergone a fundamental change. During the POGO era, the government mainly collected foreign exchange transaction taxes and franchise fees; whereas PIGO's taxes are based on domestic consumption, including business tax, value-added tax, and special consumption tax, among others.
According to PAGCOR Chairman Domingo, online cockfighting gambling (e-sabong) can generate hundreds of millions of pesos in revenue for the government each month, providing a stable cash flow that is particularly important for the Philippines' finances in the post-pandemic era.
On the social impact front, the controversies surrounding PIGO mainly focus on the risks of domestic problem gambling. Senate President Isko Moreno warned: "In PIGO, it is the Filipinos who lose money and fall into financial distress, not foreigners."
Particularly concerning is that some former POGO operators might "continue to operate under the guise of Philippine inland online gaming companies," transferring the original cross-border gambling model underground. To address these risks, PAGCOR has strengthened responsible gaming measures, including mandatory player spending limits, self-exclusion mechanisms, and 24-hour customer support.
Another key difference lies in the intensity of technical regulation. PIGO requires all game servers to be located within the Philippines, allowing PAGCOR to monitor transaction data and behavior patterns in real time.
This arrangement significantly enhances the regulatory authority's anti-money laundering capabilities and player protection efforts, achieving a level of technical control that was not possible during the POGO era.
Future Prospects and Potential Challenges of the PIGO Industry
Looking ahead, the Philippine PIGO industry faces a situation where opportunities and challenges coexist. From a positive perspective, the potential size of the Philippine domestic gaming market is quite considerable.
With the widespread adoption of digital payments and the increasing penetration of smartphones, the accessibility of online gambling has greatly improved. PAGCOR expects that under the PIGO framework, the Philippine gambling machine market could grow by 25% from its current base, driving the development of related equipment supply, technical services, and content development in multiple sub-sectors.
2025 will be a key year for PIGO's development. According to industry intelligence, the Philippines will see the opening of 2-3 new integrated casino resorts, which typically require 1,200-1,500 gambling machines, creating numerous business opportunities for PIGO operators.
Additionally, PAGCOR plans to complete the privatization of all 41 casinos by 2025, a process that could trigger a new wave of equipment upgrades, further stimulating market demand.
However, PIGO's development also faces several policy uncertainties. Senate President Isko Moreno has explicitly requested a "cost-benefit analysis" of PIGO to assess its actual impact on the socio-economic landscape.
He warned: "If the Philippine inland online gaming industry indeed harms our citizens, they (the government) have no reason not to make the same decision (as the POGO ban)." This political pressure could potentially translate into stricter regulatory measures in the future, or even a complete ban.
Another potential challenge comes from regional competition. As Southeast Asian countries gradually open up their gaming industries, the Philippines' early advantage is diminishing.
Local operators like RGB have already begun exploring new markets in Thailand, the UAE, and Sri Lanka, a trend of internationalization that could divert investment from the Philippine domestic market. Additionally, the rise of cross-border online gambling poses a substitute threat to PIGO, especially for Filipino players seeking higher odds and a richer selection of games.
On the technical front, the adoption of blockchain and cryptocurrencies could disrupt existing regulatory models. The use of anonymous digital currencies could make player identity verification and tracking of fund flows more difficult, potentially weakening the effectiveness of anti-money laundering measures under the PIGO framework. PAGCOR needs to continuously update its technical regulatory tools to address these emerging challenges.
In summary, the Philippine PIGO industry is at a crossroads in its development. On one hand, it has the potential to fill the market gap left by POGO's exit, providing a stable source of government revenue; on the other hand, its domestic orientation also brings new social responsibilities and regulatory challenges.
In the coming years, whether PIGO can achieve sustainable development will largely depend on the regulatory authority's ability to balance industry promotion with public interest protection.
