In this new analysis, published in BNL Data, editor Magno José examines the implications of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s re-election for Brazil’s regulated betting sector, arguing that the government’s push to ban sports betting has weakened the legal market and outlining the legal and political challenges operators face in the months ahead.
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was re-elected this Sunday, the 25th, for his fourth term. With 99,99% of the polling stations counted by the TSE (Superior Electoral Court), he had 51,79% of the valid votes, against 48,21% for Flávio Bolsonaro, a lead of approximately 4,4 million votes. The victory contradicted the average of the previous day’s polls, which showed the senator ahead, and surprised a large part of the market, including the betting sector. It is legitimate and undeniable. But it does not make one of the government’s most misguided decisions—the prohibition of sports betting—a success. And it changes the scenario in which the regulated sector will have to fight for its survival.
Elections are decided by many factors, and there’s no way to measure how many votes the crusade against betting yielded or cost. What can be measured is the process that led to it. It was a decision conceived in the political core of the Presidential Palace, transformed into a strategy by the Secretariat of Communication, and announced without the regulated sector being consulted even once. With the reelection, this decision ceases to be a campaign banner and becomes state policy for another four years.
The origin of the idea
The argument that gambling was indebting families and draining income that previously went to commerce, culture, and entertainment gained traction within the president’s circle. Lula embraced the idea and found in Sidônio Palmeira, Minister of the Secretariat of Communication, an ally willing to transform it into a strategy.
The government commissioned follow-up surveys that showed public rejection of gambling. The data was accurate, but the interpretation was incomplete. Widespread rejection of a sector is not the same as voting intention. And those who gamble, support, and work in this market also vote.
A government that only listened to one side.
The decision was built on a series of one-note events. At the meeting held at the Palácio do Planalto, broadcast live on YouTube, the government listened exclusively to entities and individuals opposed to gambling. Shortly afterward, at an event with artists in Rio de Janeiro at Fundição Progresso, Lula announced that he would ban betting.
At no point did the government meet with the National Association of Games and Lotteries – ANJL, the Brazilian Institute of Responsible Gaming – IBJR, or the companies that operate legally in the country. A decision affecting a regulated market, with authorized operators, formal jobs, and revenue destined for legal beneficiaries, was made without listening to those who operate it. It wasn’t public policy. It was a charade.
The wrong calculation
The price tag appeared on the streets and in the stadiums. During the classic match between Flamengo and Fluminense, there was a protest and the president was widely insulted by the fans. Even so, the discourse hardened. In Natal, in front of supporters, Lula stated: “This is the march of those who no longer want bettors robbing the poor people of this country.” Throughout the campaign, he called the sector a plague and treated businessmen in a legal market as if they were criminals.
The president’s remarks against the sector bordered on cruelty. Lula criminalized and demonized a legal activity, and helped build the destructive image and negative reputation that now weighs on betting. No head of state should treat with such levity an activity that he himself authorized, taxed, and oversaw. Law 14.790, which regulated fixed-odds betting, was sanctioned by him, and the rules that companies followed were written by the Ministry of Finance of his government.
After the first round, even the core of the government felt the cost. As BNLData showed at the time, the ban became the most expensive part of Lula’s campaign: those close to the president admitted that the measure did not resonate with voters as expected.
There was no formal mea culpa. But the change in tone said more than any official statement: the political gamble did not yield the promised return. From then on, as BNLData also recorded, the campaign backed down on attacks against betting, and Lula began to speak less about the topic and avoid football.
The retreat, however, was short-lived. In the live broadcast last Thursday (22), three days before the vote, Lula once again asserted: the bets will not return. If re-elected, he will have four years to fulfill the promise and to discover that it does not depend on a decree. The bettor does not disappear when the legal site goes offline: he changes address.
A sector that hasn’t had time to mature.
The ban hit a market that had only been regulated for 22 months. The rules were clear, the authorized companies had paid fees, taxes, and contributions, and the oversight system was still under construction. Interrupting this process before reaping its rewards is to waste the only path that works: regulation.
Brazil enters this debate without a tradition of gambling. For 85 years, gambling was prohibited since the 1941 Law of Criminal Offenses, a period during which the country only tolerated lotteries, which are also games of chance, but under federal control. A gambling and betting culture never developed, nor did mature regulation take hold.
Worse still: the law that created fixed-odds betting was approved in 2018 and remained unregulated for six years. In this vacuum, the market became a no-man’s-land. Platforms licensed in other jurisdictions and illegal websites, without any license, flooded the country, supported by aggressive advertising and inappropriate messages from influencers. The negative externalities that the government now attributes to legal betting stemmed from this period without rules, not from the regulation that came later.
The game doesn’t stop.
Banning gambling doesn’t eliminate it; it just relocates it. Gambling is on mobile phones and crosses borders. Even in China, a country with almost total control of the internet, millions of people gamble on illegal platforms.
Gambling is a social and economic phenomenon. Every time the topic resurfaces in Brazil, the debate is divided between two extremes: legalization or prohibition. The real question is not whether gambling should exist, but who governs it: the State or illegality.
By banning betting in the name of protecting citizens, the government has failed to protect them. It has pushed gamblers towards unlicensed websites, lacking responsible gambling mechanisms, data protection, and tax collection.
The legal front has become more difficult, but it hasn’t closed.
In the short term, the fate of the sector rests in the hands of Minister Luiz Fux at the Supreme Federal Court. He will decide on the request for an injunction to suspend, totally or partially, the effects of the Provisional Measure. With Lula strengthened by the polls, the gesture takes on another weight: suspending a provisional measure from a recently re-elected president is more complex than it would be in the case of a defeated government.
Time is also a factor. Published on September 25th, Provisional Measure 1.394/2026 prohibited the operation and advertising of fixed-odds betting and gave authorized companies 30 days to comply. The deadline expired this Sunday, while the country was voting. The 85 authorizations granted by the Secretariat of Prizes and Betting of the Ministry of Finance – SPA-MF, which allowed the operation of 188 brands, lost their validity, and the fees paid will not be refunded. Without a retroactive decision, with ex tunc effect, the licenses are canceled. And each day of inactivity further compromises the sector: companies with hired employees, ongoing services, and signed sponsorships are losing their capacity to react and, ultimately, to survive.
The companies tried to avoid this outcome in court. After the enactment of the Provisional Measure, operators and the National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) filed 19 injunctions in the Federal Court, with various requests, mainly to suspend the effects of the measure and maintain the validity of the licenses. There were 14 actions in the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region (TRF3), which covers São Paulo and Mato Grosso do Sul, and five in the Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region (TRF1), based in Brasília, including that of ANJL.
So far, no judge has granted an injunction. The only decision favorable to the sector was short-lived: the 9th Federal Civil Court of São Paulo granted a partial injunction to Stake, allowing the company to operate until October 25th, but the president of the TRF3 (Regional Federal Court of the 3rd Region) suspended the decision at the request of the Federal Government. However, the unfavorable ruling in the first instance does not end the discussion: the final word on the constitutionality of the Provisional Measure rests with the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, the sector’s legal argument still stands. The companies paid concessions, complied with rules written by the government itself, and received authorizations with a defined term. Extinguishing them by provisional measure, without transition and without compensation, is exactly the type of legal uncertainty that the Supreme Court exists to contain. Victory at the polls gives political strength to the president, but it doesn’t change the Constitution.
The political front: a moving chessboard
In Congress, immediate analysis of the Provisional Measure is unlikely. According to BNLData’s calculations, it will begin blocking the agenda of the House in which it is being processed on November 9th, the 46th day of its validity. The initial 60-day period ends on November 23rd, and the extension begins the following day. With the parliamentary recess, from December 23rd to February 1st, the count is suspended, and the Provisional Measure will only lose its validity on March 4th, 2027, if it is not voted on by then. No company in the sector would have the financial health to survive these five months of inactivity. Therefore, the solution cannot depend solely on the legislative clock.
The political landscape, however, is far from static. By the end of the year, Hugo Motta and Davi Alcolumbre will begin planning the succession in the leadership of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, and no one yet knows to what extent the president of Congress will want to contradict a strengthened president of the Republic, whether by letting the provisional measure expire or by voting against it. This realignment of forces opens space for negotiation, and those who negotiate well are the sectors that come with data and proposals.
From February onwards, the picture changes again. The Congress elected on October 4th is more conservative and further to the right, and the re-elected president will govern with a less aligned legislature. For the regulated sector, this means interlocutors more receptive to the argument of regulation versus prohibition, and a Parliament more willing to review decisions made in the heat of the campaign.
Why is there reason for optimism?
The situation is tough, and no one in the sector needs to pretend otherwise. But the game isn’t over. There’s a request for an injunction before the Supreme Court, a Congress realigning its forces, and a government that has already shown it knows how to back down: after the first round, the campaign reduced its attacks on the sector upon realizing the cost of that rhetoric. The election is over, and with it the need to transform betting into the villain of the political platform.
The regulated sector now has the chance to do what the government hasn’t done: open the table. Present data, listen to critics, and propose new rules where existing ones have been insufficient, in advertising, protection of vulnerable users, and especially in combating illegal websites. The best answer to the question of who will oversee the market when the last licensed website goes offline remains the one the government itself gave in 2023 when it enacted Law 14.790: regulate, tax, and oversee.
Regulation is the best way.
Non-commitment is impossible, and well-meaning public officials should think carefully before turning good intentions into new business opportunities for organized crime.
Lula won the election. Now he has four years and the authority of the ballot box to correct a mistake that stemmed from a one-sided listening process. Recognizing that regulation is better than prohibition would not be a political defeat, but a statesmanlike gesture. Until then, the sector has two open paths, the Supreme Court and Congress, and reasons to remain standing. It is ready for dialogue. What’s lacking is the government’s willingness to listen.