The election campaign amplified the discourse in favor of banning fixed-odds betting (AQFs) in Brazil. In a hyper-polarized country, politicians from all sides unanimously repeat the anti-betting rhetoric. They don't even care about what's written in the regulations that have been in effect since 2025.
The election campaign amplified the discourse in favor of banning fixed-odds betting (AQFs) in Brazil. In a hyper-polarized country, politicians from all sides unanimously repeat the anti-betting rhetoric. They don't even care about what's written in the regulations that have been in effect since 2025.
It's astonishing that even members of the current government, which complied with the law and proposed the regulation, and the congressmen who approved the rule, have joined the race to see who can blame gambling for more of Brazil's problems.
Even those who call themselves liberals are clamoring for the ban. All presidential candidates say they are against it and are vying to see who will make the most radical proposal. Candidates for state governorships say they will prohibit, do, and do whatever they want on matters under federal jurisdiction.
Social movements, associations, academics, artists, and much of the media produce and disseminate negative statements about the sector, even disregarding minimal fact-checking procedures.
Betting has become the target of a barrage of accusations, falsely blamed for problems such as household debt (when it can only account for 1% of it), crises in retail companies, and the (non-existent) decline in ENEM (Brazilian National High School Exam) enrollments. The other day, an airline CEO said the sector was suffering because of betting. The next day, news broke that flights were more crowded than before. Numbers are announced as fact without showing how they were obtained. And when these numbers are confronted with official data provided by the Betting Management System (Sigap) — created by the Treasury, which registers every bet in the regulated market — reality be damned.
And to hell with the fact that betting is legalized and regulated in all the countries that Brazilians usually look to as benchmarks of progress, freedom, and the rule of law. In China, betting is prohibited, and Beijing estimates there are 200 million gamblers. Does prohibition even help?
But simply rejecting the idea isn't enough; we need to understand it. One driving force behind this aversion is personal experience: who doesn't have a relative or friend who got into trouble with gambling? I myself do. Another driving force, perhaps the most important, is that many people are currently harming themselves through gambling. And these problems shouldn't be minimized. They need to be addressed—as is done in other countries. Regulation came about for this reason. Going back to prohibition is like cutting off the remedy without knowing if it will be effective.
For the country to find a solution, it needs accurate information to make a good diagnosis and prescribe an effective remedy. It is necessary to distinguish between problems that occurred before or after regulation and with authorized or illegal operators. What the vast majority of these problems—and all those prior to 2025—have in common is that there has never been a safety net for gamblers in Brazil. This is the first time.
Therefore, this year, at least four court rulings ordered regulated companies to refund money spent by bettors for failing to comply with the Responsible Gaming Policy. During the World Cup, some advertisements that violated regulations were changed within a few days, and any abuses may be subject to punishment.
Regarding money laundering, legal betting agencies are the only ones that only allow identified bets, prohibiting intermediation. The president of COAF (Council for Financial Activities Control) recently stated that the regulated betting market has been a partner in combating this crime, which conceals others. In a prohibited market, money laundering through betting will multiply. Match-fixing, likewise.
I reiterate that the risks and damages associated with betting activity must be addressed as a priority. Oversight must be expanded. The illegal market must be more strongly combated. Among legal players, those who do not comply with the rules should face sanctions, even exclusion. But prohibition will not end betting; it will only end the only regulation that has ever protected bettors in the history of this country.
(*) José Francisco Manssur is a partner at CSMV Advogados, co-author of the base text of the SAFs Bill and the first leader of the Ministry of Finance team that regulated fixed-odds betting in Brazil. The article was published by O Globo.
