The debate on betting has shifted from legalization to new restrictions.

The regulatory debate on betting and sports betting in Brazil has entered a new phase. Following the legalization of the sector, the government and Congress are focusing their efforts on restricting advertising, protecting consumers, and combating illegal operators, reveals Poder360.

The movement gained visibility this Friday (26) when the Finance Minister, Dario Durigan, declared that the economic team is studying limiting betting advertisements during World Cup game broadcasts. The proposal foresees treatment similar to that applied to alcohol and cigarettes. Durigan even suggested warnings such as: “The Ministry of Finance warns: betting is bad for your health and makes you lose income”.

The hardening of the discourse is occurring in parallel with a cycle of accelerated expansion in the sector. In 2025, the market generated R$ 9 billion in federal revenue. In the first five months of 2026, the value had already reached almost R$ 6 billion, an increase of 86% compared to the same period of the previous year.

Advertising in the crosshairs of regulatory bodies.

In the same week, Senacon (National Consumer Secretariat) opened proceedings to investigate possible abusive practices in the insertion of betting odds during CazéTV's World Cup broadcasts. For Lorena Dinarowski, a lawyer at Bruno Boris Advogados, the initiative reflects a shift in focus by public bodies, which have begun to observe how the product is presented to the consumer. "The most likely scenario is not a ban on betting, but a strengthening of the sector's operating rules, especially regarding advertising," she stated. She warns that odds are frequently incorporated into the narration of matches, taking on the appearance of recommendations rather than advertisements.

Lucas Tavares, a partner at Andrade Maia Advogados, sees the move as a natural consequence of legalization. “Legalization is just the starting point. The challenge is to calibrate the regulations to preserve the legal market, protect the bettor, and combat the clandestine operator,” he stated, citing the United Kingdom and the Netherlands as countries that have improved their rules as the market has matured.

Plínio Lemos Jorge, president of ANJL (National Association of Games and Lotteries), adopted a contrary position. According to him, the sector already has comprehensive legislation and self-regulation mechanisms. "Any initiatives aimed at restricting advertising by betting houses will only contribute to an increase in the participation of clandestine websites," he said, citing the experience of Italy, where severe restrictions favored the illegal market.

Tension between social protection and revenue collection.

Experts point to the state's fiscal dependence on the sector as the main obstacle to more drastic measures. Juliana Sene Ikeda, a lawyer at the Campos Thomaz Advogados firm, believes that the government has made progress in combating addiction and identifying users, but faces a structural limitation: "The greater the dependence on tax revenue, the less political space there tends to be for measures that reduce the volume of gambling."

Marcos Poliszezuk, from Poliszezuk Advogados, describes the contradiction as something intrinsic to the model. "The more the market grows, the more the State collects; the more the State collects, the less incentive there is for measures that could contract the market," he assessed. For him, a reversal of the regulation is unlikely; the only available path is to tighten the operational rules.

Convergence between the Legislative and Executive branches.

Despite disagreements about intensity, there is consensus between Congress and the Treasury regarding the need for a formal and taxed market. Maristela Ferreira de Souza Miglioli, from Ciari Moreira Advogados, points out that the more than 230 bills on betting currently being processed in the Legislature indicate that the focus has shifted from authorization to improving public health and business operation rules, with a focus on an international licensing model.

Caio Ruotolo, a partner at Silveira Advogados, summarizes where the differences lie: "The Treasury tends to defend a more revenue-generating model, while Congress seeks to modulate the political, economic, and social impacts of regulation."

For Henrique Gasparino, CEO of NimbusTax, the central dilemma for the economic team is finding a point where tightening the rules does not compromise the legal market. According to him, excessive restrictions not only reduce revenue but also "encourage bettors to migrate to clandestine platforms."