Reflections on IN SPA/MF No. 22/2025 and the autonomy of beneficiaries of social programs.
The recent publication of Normative Instruction SPA/MF No. 22, of September 30, 2025, which mandates that fixed-odds betting operators block the registration and use of systems by beneficiaries of Bolsa Família and the Continuous Benefit Payment (BPC), under the terms of Ordinance SPA/MF No. 1.231/2024, reignites a relevant debate: ultimately, what degree of autonomy should be granted to those receiving income transfer programs?
Nature of income transfer programs
Social programs in Brazil generally take two forms:
⇒ 1. Restrictive models – the benefit is granted through vouchers, cards, or checks that can only be used in pre-determined establishments or for specific products.
⇒ 2. Liberal models – predominant in consolidated democracies, in which resources are transferred directly to the beneficiary's account, recognizing their autonomy to decide how to use them.
The Bolsa Família program follows this second approach. The funds are deposited into the account of the family head – preferably a woman – in line with trust in the citizens' ability to judge and respect for their dignity and individual freedom.
Autonomy, not paternalism.
The logic of the program has always been clear: the resource belongs to the beneficiary, not the State. It is up to them, and not third parties, to define consumption priorities. This concept avoids a paternalistic bias that, under the pretext of "protecting the poorest," ends up infantilizing adult citizens and restricting their full citizenship.
It is important to remember that even before the popularization of sports betting, multiple consumer choices already existed – some riskier or less rational from an economic point of view – and the State did not interfere with this free will.
The asymmetry of public debate
By portraying regulated betting as social villains, distortions are created:
High-risk financial products, veritable gambling markets, remain accessible to any citizen without any concern for the vulnerability of investors.
Illegal and unregulated gambling continues to be socially tolerated, even without any form of state protection or revenue collection.
Regulated betting, subject to strict compliance, monitoring, and taxation standards, is treated more severely than activities without any control.
This asymmetry ultimately reveals a discriminatory bias: restricting the choices of those who have the least, instead of guaranteeing them protection through a regulated, transparent, and secure market.
The necessary debate
The discussion should not be about what the poorest can or cannot do with the resources they receive.
The real debate is: how to guarantee all citizens – without distinction – freedom of choice, equal treatment, access to regulated markets, and effective legal protection against abuses and illegalities.
Any public policy that removes the autonomy of beneficiaries of social programs needs to be viewed with caution, lest it reinforce inequalities and compromise constitutional principles of freedom, dignity, and non-discrimination.
Regulated fixed-odds betting and online gaming operations cannot be made a scapegoat for social fragilities. The solution lies not in prohibiting choices, but in expanding regulation, financial education, and protection for all consumers, regardless of their socioeconomic status.
(*) Waldir Marques is a lawyer, Regulatory Consultant, former CEO of Caixa Loterias and former Undersecretary of Regulation at the Ministry of Finance.
