Brazil Betting Groups Challenge Ban at Football Matches

Licensed betting companies have used advertising boards at two Brasileirão matches to publicly oppose Brazil’s prohibition of regulated betting.

Companies associated with the National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) and the Brazilian Institute of Responsible Gaming (IBJR) displayed campaign messages during São Paulo vs. Santos on October 2 and Atlético-MG vs. Red Bull Bragantino on October 3.

Both fixtures were postponed matches from the 21st round of Serie A.

The campaign refers to Provisional Measure No. 1,394/2026, issued by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva on September 25. The messages placed around the stadiums reflected the central argument made in a manifesto published by ANJL and IBJR following the announcement of the betting prohibition.

The advertising boards carried three messages:

“Banning is not protecting”

“Banning does not end betting”

“It ends the protection of those who bet”

Industry Groups Warn of Wider Impact

ANJL and IBJR argue that removing Brazil’s regulated betting market would affect more than bettors. According to the associations, football clubs, sponsors and other participants in the sports economy could also be affected.

The groups said existing sponsorship contracts and longer-term investment plans were established under the regulatory framework created by the Brazilian government.

ANJL president Plínio Lemos Jorge said maintaining regulation and legal certainty is important for participants in the sports ecosystem.

“For ANJL and IBJR, maintaining a regulated environment, with clear rules and legal certainty, is essential so that clubs, companies and other agents in the sports ecosystem can plan their long-term investments.”

IBJR president Carlos Lima also highlighted concerns over uncertainty created by a market operating under state-issued authorisations.

“For the organizations, any changes must consider the effects on this chain and preserve the legal certainty necessary for companies, clubs and other partners to plan investments and fulfill their commitments.”

The associations' manifesto argues that prohibiting licensed operators would not eliminate betting activity but could instead push it outside the regulated environment.

ANJL and IBJR point to official and industry estimates indicating that millions of people were participating in online betting before the prohibition. They argue that customers using illegal platforms would not necessarily be subject to the same requirements concerning identity verification, responsible gaming and taxation.

The groups also cite estimates suggesting that illegal betting already accounted for part of the market before the ban. Their manifesto argues that this share could increase significantly if regulated operators are removed.

According to the associations, such a shift could affect tax revenues, consumer protection and efforts to combat illegal betting platforms. The figures cited are industry estimates and form part of ANJL and IBJR's argument against the prohibition.

ANJL and IBJR Push for Stronger Regulation

While opposing the ban, ANJL and IBJR said additional measures are needed to address harmful gambling and household indebtedness.

However, the associations argue that these issues should be addressed through a stronger regulated framework rather than by removing regulation altogether.

Their recommendations include tighter deposit limits, shorter deposit time limits, additional mental health measures, stricter advertising requirements and stronger enforcement of existing legislation against illegal operators.

By placing the campaign at prominent Brazilian football matches, ANJL and IBJR have brought their opposition to the betting prohibition directly into a sport that has become closely connected with the betting industry.

The associations are using high-profile football events to reinforce their argument that regulation should be maintained rather than replaced by prohibition as Provisional Measure No. 1,394/2026 continues through Brazil’s political and legal process.