Research reveals that most Brazilians believe that betting increases the risk of match-fixing in football.
Videos that circulated during the World Cup with accusations against Vinicius Junior, still without proof, gave shape to what the research translates into numbers: the distrust of Brazilians regarding the impact of sports betting on football has reached a widespread level. For 58% of those interviewed in a survey conducted between July 4th and 8th, 2026, betting increases the risk of match-fixing in sports.
This research is the first conducted by More in Common in partnership with Ipsos-Ipec focusing on the sports impact of online betting. Carried out during the World Cup, it surveyed 2.000 people aged 16 and over in 130 municipalities across all regions of the country, and has a margin of error of 2 percentage points.
Fear of manipulation
Risk perception is not homogeneous, but it is broad. Of the 72% who see an increased risk, 58% say that betting greatly increases the probability of manipulation, and 14% consider that the risk increases slightly. Only 10% rule out any relationship between betting and manipulation. The other 18% did not know or did not want to answer.
This fear is based on high-profile cases. Bruno Henrique, from Flamengo, was accused of deliberately getting a yellow card in a match against Santos in 2023. Lucas Paquetá, from West Ham, allegedly deliberately got yellow cards in games in 2022 and 2023. Eduardo Bauermann, then playing for Santos, is being investigated for allegedly receiving money to force a foul that would result in a yellow card in a match against Avaí, also in 2022. Meanwhile, during the current World Cup, videos went viral on social media with accusations, without evidence, that Vinicius Junior had refrained from taking the first penalty in a shootout against Norway to favor gamblers.
The demographic distribution of the results reveals patterns. Men and people with family incomes above 5 minimum wages are more likely to perceive the risk of manipulation. Women, the elderly, and people with incomplete or complete primary education make up the largest share of those who did not respond or did not know how to answer. Whites and blacks register equivalent levels of distrust.
The cost of sponsorship
The survey presented respondents with a direct trade-off : should betting be allowed because it financially helps clubs, or banned because it harms fans and families? The answer was clear: 68% opted for a ban; 19% defended allowing it.
The financial burden involved is considerable. In the 2025 season, 18 of the 20 Serie A clubs had betting companies as their main sponsors , with a total investment of R$ 1,2 billion. Despite this, most Brazilians believe that the benefit to the clubs does not compensate for the social damage.
Rejection of the sponsorship cuts across different religious and racial profiles, with evangelicals, people without religion or non-Christians, and distinct racial groups showing similar levels of opposition. In the political context, voters of Flávio Bolsonaro showed a greater propensity to both reject the sponsorship and believe in the risk of manipulation, compared to Lula's voters.
Strong opposition
Pablo Ortellado, executive director of More in Common Brazil, highlights the cross-cutting nature of the result: "Successive surveys have shown that most Brazilians are concerned about how addiction and debt resulting from sports betting harm families."
Ortellado further emphasizes what the research adds to the ongoing debate: "The More in Common/Ipsos-Ipec survey addresses the problem for the first time from the perspective of sports impact." According to him, "a large majority believes that betting increases the risk of sports results being manipulated; 58% believe it greatly increases the risk of manipulation."
According to the researcher, the demographic pattern of the consensus confirms the uniformity of concern: "The consensus around the negative impact of bets varies little demographically."
More in Common is a non-partisan, non-profit organization that studies political polarization in seven countries, including Brazil, with a focus on strengthening democracy and promoting social cohesion.
The research used three-stage cluster sampling, with quotas for sex, age, education, race and color, and activity, calibrated by the 2022 Census and the 2024 Continuous National Household Sample Survey.
