Bets on the Supreme Court: time to trade the political platform for responsibility.
Minister Luiz Fux will preside over a public hearing at the Supreme Federal Court this Tuesday (November 3rd) regarding the prohibition of fixed-odds sports betting in Brazil. The event takes place within the scope of Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) 8.027, filed by the National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) against Provisional Measure 1.394/2026.
In an article published in Placar magazine, expert Andrei Kampff argues that the ban does not solve the problems the measure aims to address and calls for a debate based on evidence, effective enforcement, and protection of public health. The hearing brings together 34 participants, including representatives from the Ministries of Health and Justice.
The session is not decisive: it neither suspends the ban nor authorizes the return of betting platforms. In Congress, the provisional measure needs to be voted on by November 23rd, a deadline that can be extended for another 60 days.
Legal certainty in jeopardy
One of the central points of the debate involves legal certainty for the sector. The state charged R$ 30 million for five-year operating permits and, less than two years after the opening of the regulated market, ordered the closure of the activity. For Kampff, the government can change course, but it needs to demonstrate why less restrictive alternatives would be insufficient.
The article also points out that the world's major democracies have not banned sports betting. The United Kingdom, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and the United States allow the activity with their own regulations. Brazil legalized betting in 2018, opened the regulated market in 2025, and less than two years later reversed the decision.
Risk of illegal migration
The ban could push bettors towards illegal operators, according to the analysis. A survey by Ranking dos Políticos, published by Folha, examined 11 countries that have banned or restricted betting and identified migration to foreign and clandestine platforms, loss of tax revenue, and capital flight. In China, where the activity is prohibited, approximately $307 billion (around R$1,6 trillion) is estimated to have left the country illegally in a single year.
In Brazil, a survey by ANJL, published by Veja magazine, identified 60.477 suspicious addresses as of October 27th. The study is from the industry itself, and not all addresses emerged after the ban, but the data is considered relevant to the debate.
Kampff states that authorized operators were obligated to identify bettors, prevent money laundering, and inform the state, which allowed for oversight and punishment. In the clandestine market, these obligations cease to exist.
The article advocates for regulation with identity and age verification, blocking access to minors, identifying risky behaviors, and respecting self-exclusion. Among the listed requirements are also controlled advertising, resources for addiction prevention and treatment, restrictions on athletes, referees, and officials, as well as combating match-fixing.
