In this editorial, BNLData editor Magnho José examines how Brazil’s betting ban may have backfired politically, arguing that the government ignored repeated warnings about the electoral risks of alienating millions of bettors ahead of the second round.
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s reelection campaign took nine days to discover what the regulated betting market had been saying since the first rumor about the provisional measure: banning bets on the eve of the election was an electoral risk, not an asset.
This Sunday (4), Senator Flávio Bolsonaro (PL) finished the first round ahead, with 47,03% of the valid votes, against Lula’s 45,16%, a difference of 1,87 percentage points. According to a report in O Globo this Monday (5), members of the campaign itself believe that the ban harmed the president.
It wasn’t for lack of warning. On September 16th, nine days before the announcement of the Provisional Measure, BNLData published the article “Why banning betting could cost Lula the election.” In it, an expert in electoral research made a simple calculation: Brazil has more than 31 million active unique bettors, and it would only take displeasing 10% of them for the president to lose the election.
The numbers add up. Ten percent of the more than 30 million bettors are about 3 million voters. Flávio Bolsonaro finished the first round with 56.104.503 votes, against Lula’s 53.879.538, a lead of 2.224.965 votes. The margin separating the two candidates is smaller than the number the expert said was sufficient to defeat the president.
The warning was repeated. BNLData showed that the government was trading regulation for campaign rhetoric, driven by the electoral calendar and not by the fight against gambling addiction and the protection of bettors.
The analysis by journalist Mauro Cezar Pereira, from UOL Esporte, resonated, classifying the prohibition as potential electoral suicide. And, on the day of the announcement, he noted that the decision was dividing the campaign and that a measure approved by a majority in the polls could mobilize a large and engaged minority against the president. That is exactly what happened.
The two advisors
The O Globo newspaper report names those responsible. Only Minister Sidônio Palmeira, of the Secom (Special Secretariat for Social Communication), and First Lady Janja da Silva defended a total ban. The other members of the presidential inner circle classified the measure as radical and risky. According to a note by columnist Lauro Jardim, the president of the PT (Workers’ Party), Edinho Silva, opposed the idea and even argued with its supporters. Lula sided with the pair.
According to BNLData, Sidônio made his decision based on the tracking data. The numbers showed rejection of betting, and the marketing strategist concluded that the campaign needed a high-impact action in the final stretch. Tracking measures mood, not consequence. The Atlas/Bloomberg survey indicated 75% support for the ban, but no one asked bettors, especially recreational bettors, what they would do with their vote if betting were prohibited.
Janja, in turn, maintained that the measure would have strong support from female voters. According to sources heard by BNLData, the first lady’s conviction was based on the opinion of producer Paula Lavigne, one of the most active voices in the artistic community against betting. A public policy affecting 31 million people was decided based on campaign polls and the opinion of a restricted circle, without listening to those who bet.
Who was left out of the count?
The vast majority of these 31 million are recreational gamblers, who wager modest amounts for fun at companies authorized by Lula’s own government. For them, the provisional measure was not protection. It was a loss.
The Special Secretariat for Social Communication (Secom) also ignored the ecosystem surrounding the gambler. Football clubs lost their main sponsors. Influencers lost contracts and, as reported by O Globo, began soliciting strategic votes for Flávio Bolsonaro among the C class. And opposition politicians gained a ready-made agenda to promote in their regions.
Flávio Bolsonaro filled the void left by the government. The PL candidate defended the distinction between sports betting and online casinos, which the Provisional Measure treats as if they were the same thing, and spoke directly to those who would lose out with the measure. He reminded them that the prohibition breaks sponsorship contracts with clubs and that women’s football would be one of the most affected, a year before the Women’s World Cup in Brazil.
“There’s a risk that there won’t be a Women’s World Cup because of Lula’s stroke of the pen,” he told journalists on September 28th, three days after the announcement of the Provisional Measure. He even mentioned merchants who sell products with the betting houses’ brands. “It’s reckless to do this overnight,” he stated.
The irony is evident. The first lady defended the ban in the name of the female electorate, and it was her opponent who appeared speaking in defense of women’s soccer.
The government took a big gamble. It turned the election into a “plebiscite of bets,” in the words of Minister Dario Durigan, and displayed the slogan “Flávio is a bet. Lula is the way” on a large screen. The plebiscite was held, and the candidate the government called “the bet” came in first.
The worst may be yet to come. Starting Tuesday (6), MP 1.394 mandates the removal of the sites from the air. Millions of people who are still able to play will find the door closed just weeks before the second round. Some of them will migrate to the illegal market, which already accounts for more than 40% of bets, does not pay tax, and does not protect anyone.
A policy built over two years of regulation was dismantled due to the electoral calculations of two council members. The calculation was wrong. It wasn’t for lack of warning.