UOL columnists criticize possible ban on betting by MP: "Cheap demagoguery"
Columnist Alexandre Borges described the possibility of the federal government banning betting in Brazil through a provisional measure as "cheap and very complicated demagoguery." The statement was made this Thursday (September 24th) on UOL News, 2nd edition, on Canal UOL.
The indication that President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is expected to sign an executive order to end online sports betting sparked debate on the program. The measure was described as drastic and scheduled for implementation in the coming weeks.
“This measure bothers me a lot. It’s cheap demagoguery and very complicated. First, what is the point of principle? Is it to prohibit everything that causes addiction? In Brazil, the sale of alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, and a lot of other things that are addictive is permitted. And these things are not banned, they are not prohibited,” said Borges.
The columnist pointed out a contradiction between the potential ban on betting and the permission for other activities that can lead to addiction. According to him, the debate needs to clarify what criteria define what is prohibited and what is merely regulated.
Borges also questioned the coexistence of private betting and state-run gambling. “In Brazil, there’s the Mega-Sena and other lotteries, with the state operating the game. So it’s also a complicated issue. I know they’re not the same thing, but in a broader argument about gambling, why is state-run gambling more moral than private gambling?” he stated.
Critique of the speed of change
The columnist acknowledged that the betting industry operates without adequate oversight and agreed with regulatory measures and increased taxes. However, he criticized the speed at which the move towards a total ban was being implemented.
“The betting market has very harmful impacts on the lives of Brazilians; it's like the Wild West and needs more control, yes. It needs more taxes, yes. Now, from one moment to the next, everything seems fine, and with the stroke of a pen, it's all banned, creating a situation like the American Prohibition a hundred years ago, which basically created the mafia. Perhaps this serves more for demagoguery than for a positive social impact,” he said.
Borges also raised the possibility that the provisional measure was launched with the expectation that it would be overturned by Congress, which would allow the government to maintain a favorable political narrative.
Election timing under debate
Columnist Tatiana Farah, also from UOL, stated that Lula's campaign preferred that the decision regarding betting be announced later. "Initially, Lula's campaign wanted him to continue speaking and for this decision to be made a little later, because it will also generate a lot of criticism. If you prohibit it, how will you combat illegal casinos?" Farah declared.
Political scientist Cláudio Couto assessed that the proposal comes at an inconvenient time. “The measure seems to have a rather strange timing, because it's very close to the election period. This is a discussion that even within President Lula's campaign had been going on for quite some time, that there needed to be a strong proposal regarding betting, perhaps at least prohibiting advertising and everything else, and this proposal for a total ban arrives just before the election,” said Couto.
