President Lula meets only with critics of the bets at the Planalto Palace.
On Tuesday (1st), President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva met at the Planalto Palace with representatives of religious entities, the productive sector, the health sector, culture and consumer protection to discuss the impacts of electronic betting on Brazilian society. The agenda, anticipated by members of the government itself as a move towards possible restrictions on the sector, resulted in a meeting of more than four hours, broadcast live, in which practically all those present defended — with varying intensity — greater regulatory rigor or the prohibition of bets.
However, the guest list was noteworthy. There were no representatives from any regulated sector associations, such as the National Association of Lottery Houses and Legal Games (ANJL) or the Brazilian Institute of Responsible Gaming (IBJR). Also absent were representatives from the Ministry of Finance—whose Secretariat of Prizes and Bets (SPA) is the authority responsible for regulating, authorizing, and overseeing the market since Law 14.790/2023—and the regulatory body itself. The Ministry of Finance was represented at the table only by Executive Secretary Rogério Ceron, who did not speak in any of the four thematic blocks of the meeting.
This double absence — of both the regulator and the regulated — is the most striking aspect of the meeting. It was the Civil House, through Minister Miriam Belchior, that presented the figures on revenue collection, oversight, and self-exclusion that would normally be the prerogative of the SPA/MF (Special Secretariat for the Ministry of Finance), without the responsible ministry being present to qualify, contextualize, or submit this data to debate. On the other hand, without any licensed operator or entity from the sector present, there was also no technical counterpoint regarding what has already been invested in compliance, identity verification, and tax collection since the regulation — nor about the practical effects of a potential prohibition on the revenue that currently forms part of the federal budget for 2027.
Thus, although the meeting was presented by the government as an exercise in listening to "Brazilian society," the selection of guests suggests a narrower objective: to build a political mandate for restrictive measures, and not to arbitrate, with all stakeholders present, the pros and cons of the current regulatory model.
"I didn't want to make the decision solely based on my own will and that of my ministers, but to listen to what society thinks," Lula stated.
In response to the points raised by those present, he said that the State needs to "make a more drastic decision." According to the president, the decision on what to do with the sector was already "two-thirds made," awaiting the meeting.
The arguments presented, block by block.
The meeting was divided into four thematic blocks, each bringing together experts and sector representatives.
Health Insurance
Minister Alexandre Padilha presented unprecedented data from the Ministry of Health: more than 1,2 million Brazilians have already self-excluded themselves from the centralized betting platform, and the number of cases treated at Psychosocial Care Centers for gambling addiction dropped from 5 in 2025 to 3,1 in the first half of 2026 alone. Researcher Hermano Tavares (USP) cited the estimate that 1 in 25 Brazilians exhibits a problematic gambling pattern, comparing the addictive potential of the product to that of inhaled cocaine. Miguel Lago (IEPS) and Rômulo Paes (Abrasco) advocated extending the advertising restriction model adopted for tobacco to betting.
Family
The Clarice Institute presented groundbreaking research indicating that 4 out of 10 Brazilian women have had direct or indirect contact with gambling, and that 56% of Brazilians (62% among women) declare themselves in favor of a total ban. The CNBB (National Conference of Brazilian Bishops), represented by Cardinal Jaime Spengler, and CONIC (National Council of Christian Churches), represented by Pastor Patrícia Bauer, advocated for strengthening—and not necessarily prohibiting—advertising restrictions and mechanisms to protect vulnerable children and families. The Alana Institute cited data from the Ministry of Justice showing that 10,5% of teenagers have gambled.
Business
The CNC presented historical data on the financial movement of betting – from R$ 55 billion in 2023 to a projection of R$ 1 trillion for 2026 ( pure narrative delusion ) – and included legal prohibition among eight proposals, alongside measures such as limiting the number of platforms and increasing taxation. Meanwhile, the CNI, through Ricardo Alban, and Febraban, through Isaac Sidney, avoided advocating for the end of the regulated market: the former proposed taxation on betting and limiting prizes similar to cigarettes; the latter focused its discourse on prohibiting credit linked to betting, demanding the renewal of the provisional measure that had expired the previous day. Dieese, through Adriana Marcolino, was the most assertive among the economic entities, stating that "the prohibition of betting is the most virtuous path."
Society
Representatives of the cultural sector — Paula Lavigne, Emicida, and influencer Yuri Zero — made the strongest appeals for a total ban, associating the sector with a "drain" on income from the working class and requesting restrictions on access to funding laws for artists sponsored by betting companies.
The Minister of Sport, Paulo Henrique Cordeiro, was the only voice in the government to avoid taking a firm stance, acknowledging the complexity of the issue for a ministry that directly benefits from funding from the sector.
The statements were made during a meeting in which he received demands from representatives of religious entities and sectors of the economy who are calling for greater regulation of betting websites.
Behind-the-scenes signaling: decision is not final.
According to a source who spoke to BNLData on condition of anonymity, the meeting surprised even the Presidential Palace staff: initially planned to take place behind closed doors, it was transformed by the president's decision into a live broadcast via the YouTube channel of the "Brazil as Electoral Propaganda" coalition, with broad participation, which the source interprets as a sign that the central objective was, in fact, to gather public opinion before any decision.
According to this assessment, President Lula did not formally take a position at the end of the meeting—despite personally stating that he considers betting "a bad thing for society"—and is expected to convene a new meeting, now restricted to ministers, to define the next steps. There is no current plan to issue a provisional measure on the subject.
“I personally would put an end to gambling; I think it’s a societal ill. Now, as President of the Republic, I have to understand that there are other things I have to share, decisions so that we can do things in the most correct way possible,” said Lula. “I think we have to take the most drastic decision. Because we don’t even have demand-pull inflation.”
The same source suggests that if the government were truly inclined towards a total ban on the sector, the announcement would have already been made at the close of the meeting itself. The hesitation, according to the source, stems from three factors:
Political-electoral calculation: There is resistance from the government to confront, in the final stretch of the pre-election cycle, organized sectors with reach and mobilization power — companies already granted concessions, the advertising market, and sports entities that depend on sponsorship.
Legal and financial exposure: An abrupt ban would expose the Union to compensation claims from the 85 operators that each paid R$ 30 million for the operating license, in addition to the infrastructure investments already made in the country — a billion-dollar bill cited by the source as one of the main obstacles to a summary measure.
Fiscal constraints via the Fiscal Responsibility Law: A third obstacle, according to supplementary research by BNLData, is budgetary in nature: part of the revenue from betting is already committed as earmarked revenue in the 2026 and 2027 budget proposals (PLOA 2027/PLN nº 2/2026), including the financing of expenses related to public security foreseen in PEC 18/2025. A prohibition in the middle of the fiscal year — or even the indication of an imminent extinction of the sector — would create a revenue liability that, under the Fiscal Responsibility Law, the government would have to replenish through spending cuts, budget freezes, or a new source of revenue, under penalty of failing to meet already agreed fiscal targets. This is, for experts interviewed for this report, a knot as relevant as the risk of compensation to the operators — and helps explain why the government's discourse has been one of greater restriction, and not prohibition in the short term.
Our assessment
The composition of the meeting—without the Minister of Finance, Dario Durigan, without the regulator, and without any licensed sector entity—indicates that the meeting had, above all, a political function: to build social support for a more rigorous discourse regarding an agenda that had already been signaled by the government itself, without subjecting this discourse to the opposing viewpoints of those who operate and regulate the market today. This does not invalidate the seriousness of the reports and data presented on public health, household debt, and social impacts, but it contextualizes the scope of what was, in fact, a listening "to society": partial, biased, and consistent with a political outcome already expected by the Presidential Palace.
The assessment from the source consulted by BNLData is consistent with this scenario: the legal cost of compensation to licensed operators and the political-electoral risk of confrontation with organized sectors make a total ban unlikely in the short term — opening space, instead, for a new round of regulatory restrictions (advertising, credit, betting limits) that do not dismantle the formalized market in 2023, but put even more strain on it in the face of the same revenue that sustains part of the 2027 budget.
