Regulation of online betting: why Lula is 'paying the political price' among voters; but the issue doesn't decide the vote.
A survey published by Folha de S.Paulo this Saturday (July 18th) indicates that 18% of Brazilian voters attribute the expansion of online sports betting to the Lula (PT) government, while only 4% attribute the phenomenon to the government of former president Jair Bolsonaro (PL). The survey is conducted by More in Common in partnership with Ipsos-Ipec and measures the impact of betting on the political opinion of Brazilians.
Most respondents, however, do not isolate either of the two governments: 33% hold both administrations equally responsible, and 35% do not attribute blame to either. Another 10% did not know how to answer. This data serves as a warning to politicians who rely on demonizing betting platforms as an electoral strategy.
The survey was conducted in person between July 4th and 8th with 2.000 people aged 16 or older in 130 municipalities. The overall margin of error is 2 percentage points.
Accountability by electoral segment
The tendency to blame the current government more persists even among Lula's own voters: 14% of this group blames the Workers' Party administration, compared to 8% who point to the Bolsonaro government. The margin of error for this breakdown is 4 percentage points.
Among voters of Flávio Bolsonaro (PL), the scenario is reversed with greater intensity: 28% blame the Lula government for the expansion of bets, compared to 3% who point to the previous administration. The majority of this group also fragments the responsibility, with 34% blaming both administrations, 28% exonerating both, and 7% without an answer.
Voters of other candidates, blank or null votes, follow a similar pattern: 15% attribute the blame to the Workers' Party government and 2% to Bolsonaro. In this segment, the dilution of responsibility is even greater, with 42% blaming both administrations equally and 32% not attributing responsibility to either of them.
History of the regulation
The legalization of online betting in Brazil predates both governments mentioned in the research. In July 2018, then-President Michel Temer (MDB) issued a provisional measure that paved the way for betting. The measure was converted into Law 13.756 on December 12, 2018, on the eve of Bolsonaro's inauguration.
The regulation stipulated that the regulation of activities should occur within four years, a deadline that was not met by the Bolsonaro government. Betting operations continued legally during this period, but without specific rules. In December 2023, already under Lula's third term, Law 14.790 was enacted with specific regulations for the "lottery modality called fixed-odds betting," which includes betting sites.
According to Pablo Ortellado, a professor at USP and director of More in Common, this trajectory explains the burden that has fallen on the current government. “We lived through the worst of all worlds, where sports betting was legal, but didn't have to comply with any rules. Faced with this scenario, the Lula government decided to regulate it and paid a price, which is being identified as more responsible than Bolsonaro, even among its own voters,” stated the researcher.
Asked whether the burden should fall more on Lula's regulations than on Bolsonaro's inaction, Ortellado assessed that the phenomenon "mixes many things," including the ease with which current technology enables access to online betting. With more than a third of Brazilians not attributing responsibility to any specific government, the professor points out that the actions of the betting companies themselves and the individual responsibility of the players may also weigh on the responses.
Bets and voting decision
The survey also tested the electoral weight of the issue. For 58% of respondents, a candidate's position on restricting betting would not affect their voting decision. Another 12% stated that supporting the limitation of bets would distance them from the candidate, and 7% did not know how to answer. Combined, these groups represent 70% of respondents for whom the discourse against betting platforms does not define their electoral choice.
Supporting restrictions on betting would tend to favor certain candidates for only 24% of respondents. This pattern remained stable across all segments analyzed, including gender, age, education, family income, race, religion, and voting intention. The numerical variations of all these groups in relation to the overall data remained within their respective margins of error.
Check out the full research report.
