Brazil’s ban on online betting came under scrutiny at SiGMA World Rome, where industry executives and regulatory experts questioned the political motivations behind the decision, warned that illegal operators could be its main beneficiaries, and discussed the prospects of restoring a regulated market.
The debate took place on Tuesday, 3 November, as Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court (STF) held a public hearing in Brasília to examine the consequences of Provisional Measure 1,394/2026, which prohibited fixed-odds betting and ended existing operating authorisations. The hearing, convened by Justice Luiz Fux, brought together government officials, industry representatives and sports organisations, with arguments ranging from public health concerns to lost revenue and legal uncertainty.
While government representatives defended the ban as a response to gambling-related harm, betting industry bodies and football clubs warned of its economic consequences and the risk of driving players towards unlicensed operators. The hearing concluded without a ruling, leaving the legal challenges unresolved.
The Supreme Court had initially selected 28 organisations to take part, including government bodies, betting industry associations and major football clubs such as Flamengo, Corinthians and São Paulo.
The concerns raised by the sporting sector extended beyond lost sponsorship revenue. Representatives of professional footballers warned that smaller clubs and their players could be particularly vulnerable to the financial consequences, while a shift towards clandestine betting could increase athletes’ exposure to match-fixing approaches.
Political motivations and the illegal market
Against that backdrop, the SiGMA panel, titled “Brazil’s Regulatory U-Turn: From Boom to Ban”, examined how a country that launched its fully regulated betting market in January 2025 had reversed course less than two years later.
Several speakers linked the decision to Brazil’s electoral calendar, questioning whether political considerations had outweighed evidence about the impact of regulation. As one panellist put it, “It was more a political decision than a technical one.”
The discussion also focused on what happens when betting demand persists, but licensed operators are no longer able to serve it. “We are pushing the player into the black market,” another panellist warned, highlighting the difficulty of protecting consumers on platforms operating beyond regulatory oversight.
The potential consequences extend beyond bookmakers. Payment providers, fintech companies, employees and investors are also exposed to the uncertainty created by the abrupt change in policy.
Stepan Dobrovolskiy, CEO of BetBoom LATAM, offered an example of the commercial impact, reporting that his company’s Brazilian business had fallen by approximately 50% since the prohibition. He also said its investment planning horizon had shrunk from three to five years to just three to six months.
Is a return to regulation possible?
Moderated by Eclipse Compliance Testing President Nick Farley, the panel brought together Dobrovolskiy, Sora Lawyers Managing Partner Juan Camilo Carrasco, Bruna Mirandola of Brazil’s Responsible Gaming Parliamentary Front, Lucimara Batista dos Reis of the Honorary Consulate of Brazil in Malta, and former Maltese ambassador to Brazil John Aquilina.
Carrasco cited Colombia’s experience with taxation of betting deposits to illustrate how measures affecting licensed operators can encourage customers to seek alternatives in the illegal market. However, he cautioned against assuming that Brazil’s situation would necessarily be repeated elsewhere in Latin America.
Despite the uncertainty, the debate did not rule out a return to regulation. Panellists called for closer cooperation between government and industry, arguing that a stable legal framework could provide better consumer safeguards while preserving investment, jobs and tax revenue.
Mirandola stressed the importance of regulation in protecting consumers and expressed confidence that Congress could find a workable balance.
For the industry, the question raised in Rome extends beyond whether Brazil will eventually lift the ban. Even if licensed betting returns, rebuilding confidence after such an abrupt reversal may prove a far greater challenge.