The "Globo Amendment" and the future of sports broadcasting and betting in Brazil: protection or regression?
In recent years, the regulation of sports betting in Brazil has been one of the most debated topics in the sports, legal, and media sectors. One of the most controversial, yet little-discussed, aspects of this regulation was the introduction of the so-called "Globo Amendment," a legal article that prohibits betting companies from acquiring, licensing, or financing broadcasting rights for sporting events held within the national territory.
This prohibition, approved within Law 14.790/2023, stemmed from a central concern: preserving the traditional model of sports broadcasting, especially the dominance of large national broadcasters, such as TV Globo.
But what are the real impacts of this measure on the sports market, betting houses, clubs and, of course, the fans themselves? This article explores the main risks and rewards of this decision.
What is the "Globo Amendment"?
The "Globo Amendment" was nicknamed as such because it directly aligns with the interests of large traditional media groups, especially Grupo Globo, which sees the growth of betting sites as a direct threat to its business model. Under the current rule, betting sites licensed to operate in Brazil cannot directly broadcast sporting events held in the country.
And it's all because of that "Globo Amendment".
This prohibition was initially included in the text of Provisional Measure No. 1.182/2023 and subsequently replicated, almost in its entirety, in Article 18 of Law No. 14.790/2023, the regulation that currently governs the fixed-odds sports betting market in Brazil.
Article 18. "It is forbidden for the operating agent, as well as its subsidiaries and parent companies, to acquire, license or finance the acquisition of rights to sporting events held in the country for the broadcasting, dissemination, transmission, retransmission, reproduction, distribution, availability or any form of exhibition of their sounds and images, by any means or process."
The official justification for the ban is that separating sports media and betting would preserve the value of broadcasting rights and protect broadcasters' audiences. However, the side effects of this measure go far beyond television and directly involve the sustainability of the regulated betting market and the risk of growth in the illegal market.
Risks of the ban: migration of bettors to alternative markets.
Global experience demonstrates that the combination of live betting and live streaming is one of the main engagement tools used by betting sites.
The problem is that the "Globo Amendment" ends up making this practice unfeasible in Brazil, which makes regulated platforms less attractive, especially for bettors who are already used to this integration, something common on international platforms.
The prohibition brought about by Article 18 increases the risk of bettors migrating to offshore sites and illegal operators, since both continue to offer this type of service, even if they use pirate streaming services.
It is well known that, despite the efforts of government regulatory bodies, thousands of illegal betting sites remain active and operating in Brazil, even after regulation. If Brazilian bettors perceive that licensed sites offer an inferior experience, they may end up opting to use unlicensed platforms, which escape the reach of national legislation.
This migration would frustrate the central objective of the regulation, which is precisely to attract bettors to the legal and controlled market, guaranteeing tax revenue and consumer protection mechanisms.
Preserving control of broadcasts by broadcasters and streaming platforms.
It is undeniable that Article 18 of Law 14.790/2023 provides strategic relief for traditional broadcasters, especially TV Globo, even more so considering that they no longer hold exclusive rights to broadcast football, as they did in the past.
With the growing rise of streaming platforms , such as Amazon , YouTube , and other tech companies , which have entered the competition for broadcasting rights to football tournaments in Brazil, the monopoly of traditional media has been broken in recent years, and the sports broadcasting market is now quite fragmented.
In this context, the prohibition on betting companies acquiring rights serves to further contain audience fragmentation. Without the additional competition from betting platforms, current rights holders—whether traditional broadcasters or streaming services —retain greater control over the sports narrative and over the pricing and profitability of these packages.
Especially in high-profile tournaments like the Brazilian Championship and the Copa do Brasil, this limitation restricts the competition to already established media players, keeping the market concentrated between traditional players and streaming giants, without the entry of actors from the strong sports betting sector.
But what about competitions with less appeal?
Economic impact: loss of revenue for clubs and leagues in the long term.
While the "Globo Amendment" protects broadcasters, it also limits competition in the purchase of sports rights. By excluding betting companies from this market, clubs and leagues lose a potential buyer (who would most likely increase the value of broadcasting rights) and an additional source of revenue.
Furthermore, they lose the support of agents who could be acquiring broadcasting rights for less important competitions, which the traditional media has no interest in showing.
In the international market, it is common, for example, for betting platforms to acquire the rights to these smaller events that don't usually get airtime on traditional TV. This generates extra income and visibility for these events. Without this possibility in Brazil, state and regional competitions in lower divisions, for example, and less popular sports miss out on the greater value and visibility that could be achieved if the possibility of acquiring rights by betting operators existed.
It is worth highlighting that clubs and sports organizations, which today heavily depend on sponsorships from betting companies, have positioned themselves against excessively restrictive measures implemented by regulatory bodies.
In this context, it is worth highlighting that in other legislative discussions, clubs from Series A and B have already jointly opposed an amendment that would prohibit betting advertising in stadiums, demonstrating the importance of this money to their financial health.
This same reasoning could be applied to the prohibition of broadcasts by betting operators, since closing the doors to the money brought in by bets could, in the future, end up being a self-inflicted wound for the sport itself.
Conclusion: protection or regression?
As demonstrated, the "Globo Amendment" is a political choice that seeks to protect the traditional model of sports broadcasting and preserve the control of major broadcasters over this model. However, it cannot be ignored that the prohibition brought about by the option chosen by the regulator creates significant distortions, such as:
⇒ Weakening of the attractiveness of licensed betting platforms, increasing the incentive for consumers to seek illegal alternatives;
⇒ Limiting competition in commercial disputes over broadcasting rights, making it more difficult to obtain higher values that could be achieved by selling those rights;
⇒ Imposing restrictions on smaller clubs obtaining an important type of revenue and on the visibility of less appealing competitions;
⇒ Perpetuation of an outdated view of the relationship between sports and betting, ignoring the global reality of integration between these industries.
The fact is that in the long run, this strategy tends to prove ineffective in protecting Brazilian sport, especially because it directly contributes to the growth of the illegal market.
Amid the ongoing process of regulating betting, Brazil needs to decide whether it wants to work for the future of the sports industry or simply contribute to preserving a past that no longer exists. The answer lies in opening a real dialogue between all stakeholders: clubs, broadcasters, betting operators, service providers, fans, and the government.
There is a real challenge ahead, which is to find a balanced model that guarantees:
⇒ Encouraging innovation, allowing new transmission formats and technological partnerships between sports and betting to be strengthened and not mitigated;
⇒ Preserving the value of broadcasting rights for clubs, whether large or small, which will not be possible if the participation of new potential buyers continues to be forgone;
⇒ Protection of the consumer (bettor) and the fan, through control of excessive encouragement of betting.
Finding the balance between all these factors will be essential in order to build a valuable, sustainable, innovative and safe model that will be beneficial to all parties in the future.
(*) Tiago Horta Barbosa is Head of Integrity at Genius Sports for Latin America, and also a member of the Integrity Committee of the International Table Tennis Federation (ITTF).
He holds degrees in international relations and law, as well as postgraduate degrees in Sports Law and Management (FIFA/CIES/UCA) and a master's degree in Sports Law (ISDE Madrid).
This professional has over 20 years of experience and is extensively involved in the fields of public security and international cooperation. He also served as a Police Training Officer with OIPC-Interpol from 2012 to 2014.
Tiago has also been notably active in the sports law sector since 2015. He specializes in sports integrity, focusing on issues related to the prevention and combating of match-fixing, as well as the impact of betting markets on sports.
He also served as Director of Business Development and Sports Integrity in Latin America at Sportradar AG (2016-2019), in addition to holding the position of Prosecutor at the STJD (Superior Court of Sports Justice) for Football (2015-2016) and Auditor at the Anti-Doping Sports Justice Court (TJD-AD) (2020-2024), and holding seats on various ethics and integrity committees.
