ANJL warns ban on betting in Brazil could drive black market
ANJL testified on 3 November that a ban would shift players to unregulated operators
Key Takeaways
- ANJL told the 3 November hearing that a ban on fixed-odds betting in Brazil could drive players to unregulated operators rather than eliminate gambling.
- ANJL said that in 2026 more than 60% of gambling activity was in the regulated market and 40% in the illegal market.
- Able estimated household gambling spending in 2025 at R$ 37,000,000,000 compared with total household spending of about R$ 8,000,000,000,000.
- The Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) warned it could lose R$ 420,000,000 in 2027, and ENDR disbursed R$ 580,000,000 between June and September 2026 to sport beneficiaries.
The National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) warned at a public hearing held on 3 November and chaired by Supreme Court Minister Luiz Fux that a ban on fixed-odds betting in Brazil will not eliminate gambling but could push players toward unregulated operators. ANJL argued for stricter regulation rather than a ban and presented data and testimony to support its position.
Arguments and data presented by ANJL
ANJL argued that previous attempts at prohibition produced no effective results and that regulation had made progress in 2026. The association stated that “in 2026, gambling slowed in Brazil. This is a relevant point to show that regulation was working. We were reaping good results. More than 60% were in the regulated market, and only 40% in the illegal market,” according to its report.
"The data and Brazil’s own institutional history show that the prohibition attempts, which lasted more than 20 years, did not have the necessary and valid effects to confront them," said Pietro Cardia, legal adviser to ANJL.
Bernardo Freire, another legal adviser to ANJL, said the recent provisional measure had reversed the progress and diverted demand to unauthorised sites.
"The rushed ban, implemented in a way that disregarded previously granted authorisations, has already had a counterproductive effect. In 30 days, we can identify it easily, demonstrating how accessible an illegal site is," Bernardo Freire said.
Positions from economists and associations
The Brazilian Association for Economic Freedom (Able) questioned a direct link between gambling and household over-indebtedness. Economist Eric Universo Rodrigues Brasil said there are not enough official data to ascribe a major role to gambling in Brazilians’ financial difficulties. Able estimated household gambling expenditure in 2025 at R$ 37 000 000 000 versus total household expenditure of approximately R$ 8 000 000 000 000.
Able compared that spending with other items: R$ 696 800 000 000 in interest payments, R$ 152 100 000 000 on mobile phones and accessories, and R$ 69 700 000 000 on streaming services.
Impact on sport and funding
Sport representatives warned of losses in sponsorship and investment. Igor Mauler Santiago of the Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) said the CBF could lose R$ 420 000 000 in revenues in 2027. Pedro Henrique Rebello de Mendonça of the Comitê Olímpico do Brasil (COB) noted that current investment decisions sustain Olympic cycles, including Los Angeles 2028.
João Paulo Bachur highlighted the role of the Escritório Nacional de Destinação de Recursos (ENDR) as a non-profit entity that funds sport and civil society; he said almost 50% of licensed operators are part of ENDR. Bachur reported that between June and September 2026 ENDR disbursed R$ 580 000 000 to beneficiaries such as the COB, the Comitê Paralímpico Brasileiro (CPB) and the Brazilian Committee of Clubs. He warned that suspending those funds would remove a steady source of financing for clubs and athletes.
Context of the hearing
The hearing brought together representatives of the [betting industry](/b2b) and economic organisations to debate the effects of Brazil’s provisional measures. Participants focused their evidence on the risk of growth in the black market and on reduced funds for sport and other beneficiaries. Regulators and courts will continue to review the measures through the legislative and judicial process, while parties maintain their positions on the effectiveness of regulation versus prohibition.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did ANJL say about the betting ban at the 3 November hearing?
ANJL said a ban on fixed-odds betting in Brazil could displace players toward unregulated operators. Its legal advisers noted prior prohibition attempts over more than 20 years produced no effective results and that the recent provisional measure would have reversed progress made in 2026.
What market figures did ANJL present about regulated versus illegal gambling?
ANJL reported that in 2026 more than 60% of gambling activity was in the regulated market and only 40% in the illegal market, using the comparison to argue that regulation had been working before the provisional measure.
How would a ban affect sports funding, according to testimony?
Sport representatives warned that a ban could reduce sponsorship and investment. The CBF said it could lose R$ 420,000,000 in revenues in 2027, and witnesses noted ENDR disbursed R$ 580,000,000 between June and September 2026 to beneficiaries such as the COB and CPB.
What economic comparisons did Able present about gambling spending?
Able estimated household gambling spending in 2025 at R$ 37,000,000,000 and compared it with larger household outlays such as R$ 696,800,000,000 in interest payments, R$ 152,100,000,000 on mobile phones and accessories, and R$ 69,700,000,000 on streaming services.
Tags
About the author
Miguel Sandoval
Regulatory Affairs Correspondent
Miguel Sandoval tracks gambling legislation, licensing, and regulator enforcement — from Spain's DGOJ and the Latin American authorities to the UKGC, the MGA, and the state-by-state map in North America. The reports answer three questions precisely — what changed, where, and who it affects — with jurisdictions, dates, and penalties cited exactly as published. Operators and compliance officers read Miguel Sandoval to know which rulebook moved before their next meeting.
More from Miguel Sandoval
