Disinformation has become a tactic in the debate about betting in Brazil. Fake news, biased polls, distorted headlines, and reports that attempt to transform personal tragedies into a widespread phenomenon have become the main strategies for shaping perceptions in a dispute driven by interest in money and votes.
In the electoral arena, the banner for banning betting began to be waved everywhere. President Lula and his antagonist, Flávio Bolsonaro, saw in the issue an opportunity for political communication on different fronts, such as defending the poor, addressing moral issues, attacking their adversaries, appealing to the powerful army of evangelicals, and mobilizing their base. The logic is simple: to highlight and prioritize an issue that has never been central to national life in order to generate indignation, engagement, votes, and more votes.
In the realm of money, the dynamics are similar. A widespread image crisis like the one the betting market is experiencing is not unique to Brazil. It is fueled by sectors that have lost control over a portion of household budgets. It's not just a matter of social concern, but a struggle for disposable income. Banks, retail, tourism, bars, and restaurants have come to see betting as direct competitors for consumer income.
The most recent example of this method came from research by the CNC (National Confederation of Commerce of Goods, Services and Tourism) on the impact of betting on retail. The study stated that betting had withdrawn R$ 143,8 billion from the segment in 2 years, a number that resulted in headlines such as:
– “Businesses lose two Christmases in revenue due to gambling” (CNN Brazil);
– “Retail sector loses over R$ 100 billion in revenue due to betting, says CNC” (Veja).
But ANJL (National Association of Games and Lotteries) disputed the calculation and pointed out what it called a R$ 100 billion error. That's not a small difference.
The central point is not just methodological. It's also about interests. The CNC represents activities that depend directly on household consumption, precisely the income that has begun to compete with betting.
This doesn't automatically invalidate their studies. However, when an interested party publishes research on a competitor's consumer income, journalism needs to report who did the measurement, using what method, with what interest, and to produce what public effect. If a billion-dollar figure becomes news before being properly scrutinized, perception has already been shaped.
Febraban reported that 40% of respondents said they had family members or close friends indebted due to gambling. The survey, intentionally or not, does not ask respondents whether the debt predated the gambling, whether gambling was the sole cause of the debt, or whether it was just another factor within a pre-existing financial problem.
The origin of the criticism also matters, because banks are among the main culprits in the indebtedness of Brazilian families. Consider this: those who profit most from society's debt want to shift the role of the biggest villain to another market.
In the first major "substantiated" attack on the sector, in September 2024, the Central Bank showed that 5 million people belonging to families receiving Bolsa Família benefits transferred R$ 3 billion via Pix to betting platforms. The press treated the data as if all this money had come directly from the social benefit to the betting sites. This information is false. These were gross transfers, not losses from the population.
There was no proof that the funds used necessarily came from the Bolsa Família program, only that the bettors were also beneficiaries. It was also not taken into consideration that, in authorized betting establishments, 85% of the value returns to the group of bettors in the form of prizes.
Alarmist headlines also help to understand the method and fuel the crusade against online betting. The Estadão newspaper published “R$ 200 in debt and depression: stories of online gambling addicts.” Later, it returned to the topic with “Vacations, 13th-month salary, and betting during lunch break: how the betting epidemic affects companies.” IstoÉ Dinheiro headlined: “I lost my entire salary to Tigrinho.” UOL published “After the death of a young man addicted to betting, family seeks R$ 3,8 million in compensation from betting.” The problem isn't investigating real-life dramas. It's transforming extreme cases into general evidence against an entire market.
There are people who gamble a little, recreationally, as part of their entertainment. All entertainment has a cost. Movies cost money. Streaming costs money. Going to bars costs money. Travel costs money. Gambling also costs money. The difference is that, in this case, there is the possibility of financial return.
In the regulated market, "responsible gambling" has become a mandatory mantra. Legalized gambling establishments have adopted tools for prevention, monitoring, and support for gamblers with high-risk profiles. Ebac (Brazilian Company for Support of Compulsive Gamblers) operates precisely in this field. This difference matters because the regulated market and the illegal market are not the same thing.
The sector's real problems exist and need to be addressed. The point is this: a real problem doesn't justify distorted data, hasty headlines, or fabricated causality. Brazil regulated betting precisely to separate the legal from the illegal, the responsible from the abusive, entertainment from exploitation.
Betting on misinformation is dangerous because it's defending vested interests disguised as protecting vulnerable populations. The right approach isn't to demonize an entire industry or pretend there are no risks. It's to separate fact from narrative before the narrative becomes public policy.
(*) Fernando Mello , 46 years old, is a journalist and specialist in crisis management and the sports industry. A graduate of the University of São Paulo and with a postgraduate degree in sports management, he was a reporter and columnist for the Folha de S.Paulo newspaper. Since 2004, he has run the Press FC agency. He is also vice-president of the São Paulo Football Federation and won 7 Cannes Lions in 2019. He writes for Poder SportsMKT every two weeks on Tuesdays. The article was published by Poder360.
