During a public hearing on November 3 led by Justice Luiz Fux, representatives from Brazil's gambling and sports sectors expressed concerns that a ban on fixed-odds betting will not eliminate gambling but may instead push players toward unregulated operators. The National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) argued that instead of enacting a total prohibition, Brazil should adopt stronger regulations as a means to protect consumers and mitigate gambling-related harm.
Pietro Cardia, the association’s legal consultant, provided historical context, stating: "The data and Brazil's own institutional history demonstrate that the attempts at prohibition, which lasted more than 20 years, did not have the necessary, valid effects to deal with them. In 2026, gambling slowed down in Brazil. This is a relevant point to demonstrate that regulation was working. We were already reaping good results. More than 60% were in the regulated market, and only 40% in the illegal market."
Bernardo Freire, another legal consultant from ANJL, argued that a hasty ban has reversed the progress made, driving demand to unlicensed websites instead of eradicating it. He noted: "The hasty ban, implemented in a way that disregarded previously granted authorizations, has already backfired. In 30 days, we can easily identify this, demonstrating how readily available an illegal website is."
Contrarily, the Brazilian Association for Economic Freedom (Able) questioned links made between gambling and personal debt. Economist Eric Universo Rodrigues Brasil pointed out that insufficient official data exists to substantiate claims that gambling significantly contributes to the financial struggles of Brazilians. He projected that household spending on gambling could reach R$37 billion by 2025, while the average household expenditure stands around R$8 trillion.
To put this into perspective, Rodrigues Brasil compared gambling expenditures to other household costs, citing R$696.8 billion spent on interest payments, R$152.1 billion on mobile phones and accessories, and R$69.7 billion on streaming services.
During the session, Brazilian sports organizations warned that the proposed restrictions could cut off a crucial source of sponsorship and investment. Igor Mauler Santiago from the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) predicted a potential revenue loss of R$420 million by 2027. Pedro Henrique Rebello de Mendonça, a representative from the Brazilian Olympic Committee (COB), noted that the investment choices made now will impact not just the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, but also future Olympic cycles.
Lawyer João Paulo Bachur highlighted the importance of the National Allocation Office (ENDR), a non-profit entity responsible for financing various sports and civil society initiatives. He mentioned that nearly half of licensed betting operators are associated with ENDR and added that between June and September 2026, ENDR distributed R$580 million to beneficiaries such as the COB, the Brazilian Paralympic Committee (CPB), and the Brazilian Committee of Clubs. Bachur voiced concerns that ceasing this funding source could jeopardize financial stability for sports, clubs, and athletes.
The hearing convened industry representatives and economic organizations to discuss the potential repercussions of Brazil’s provisional measures. They underscored the risks of increased illegal gambling activities and diminished financial support for sports and other stakeholders.
