A proposed ban on licensed online casinos in Brazil could potentially double the market share of illegal gambling sites, increasing it from 41% to 82%, as reported by the National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL).
This alarming forecast arises from the vast number of internet domains linked to illegal gambling, many of which operate without the necessary authorization from the Ministry of Finance. A technical study conducted by the ANJL revealed that between June and August of this year, an average of 13.7 new illicit gambling websites were registered each day in Brazil.
During a focused monitoring period from September 11 to September 18, the ANJL identified 6,409 illegal betting domains that were accessible to users.
Plínio Lemos Jorge, president of ANJL, highlighted that these figures demonstrate the potential consequences of a ban on legal betting in Brazil, suggesting it could lead millions of bettors to illegal platforms, most of which are hosted overseas and are not subject to any tax obligations.
“Our study showed that of the websites located outside the national scope, 55.8% use a distribution network that hides the original hosting,” Lemos Jorge stated. “And 98.3% of the domains do not end in ‘.br’. Everything that is currently prohibited to guarantee the protection of bettors and their money will become widely accessible.”
The implications of such a ban extend beyond just the market dynamics. It would adversely affect the more than 25 million bettors currently registered on legal platforms, exposing them to unregulated sites. Additionally, stripping casino betting from Brazil could result in a loss of annual revenue ranging from BRL3.6 billion ($700.9 million) to BRL7.4 billion.
“In other words, Brazil loses in every sense,” Lemos Jorge continued. “We will have millions of people who will not stop gambling. They will simply start accessing these sites which do not collect any taxes whatsoever.
“The most vulnerable social strata, which are precisely those the government aims to protect, become even more unprotected. After all, these platforms do not offer any mechanism to safeguard financial and mental health, such as blocking beneficiaries of social programs or self-exclusion tools.”
