Lula & PT told to own the football fallout of Brazil betting ban

Elisa Marcante – SBC Noticias Brazil The Supreme Court sees Football proclaim to be the ‘first casualty’ of Brazil’s pending ban on online gambling. Yet, PT defence stands firm on prohibition being the only solution for a failed Bets regime, whatever the consequences reports Elisa Marcante of SBC Noticias Brazil The first arguments and opinions on the impact of federal ban on online gambling were heard by The Supreme Court of Brazil in Brasilia yesterday afternoon. The hearings examined the impact of Provisional Measure 1,394/2026, issued by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva on 25 September. The measure repeals the ‘Bets Law of 2024’ and bans all online gambling in Brazil, the culmination of a series of restrictive measures over the past year. Lula’s ban faces challenges on two fronts: Congress must determine whether to convert the PM into permanent legislation, with the options to reject or amend it on the table, while the STF considers challenges to its constitutionality. STF Justice: “We have been here before” Leading yesterday’s hearing, Justice Luiz Fux recalled that the court had already heard extensive evidence on gambling’s social and economic consequences during public hearings carried out in 2024 prior to the Bets regime’s existence. Pre-market STF proceedings extensively examined the liabilities of regulating online gambling within a Brazilian federal framework. Justice Fux As such, Fux noted that the court has heard the concerns laid on the legality of online gambling, including its liabilities, harms, consequences and responsibilities of licences and national authorities. The latest hearing returns the court to questions of consumer protection, responsibilities and policy failings of the Bets Law since coming to existence on 1 January 2025. That leaves the government with a difficult task. Having concluded that it could not adequately control a licensed market, it must now demonstrate that it can suppress an illegal on Deliberations also examined the consequences of closing a market established under legislation signed by President Lula himself. During the opening session, Fux heard representatives from the Ministry of Justice and Public Security (MJSP), the Attorney General’s Office (AGU), football clubs and the National Federation of Professional Football Players (Fenapaf). Football: Gov’t owns the fallout Brazil’s pro-football leagues and clubs presented themselves as the “first casualty” of Lula ban. With no hesitation, Football underlines that the economic fallout and consequences will be laid bare to the Lula and Workers Party (PT) officials. Flamengo said approximately R$430m (£58.1m) in annual revenue and more than 1,200 jobs could be jeopardised. Its General Vice-President, Flávio de Araújo Willeman, argued that the club had entered commitments in good faith. “Under the legislation in force, Flamengo incurred financial obligations to athletes and employees based on these contracts,” he told the hearing. For Fluminense’s president, Mattheus Montenegro, the dependence extended well beyond the richest clubs. Betting companies accounted for around 34% of Série A clubs’ commercial revenue in 2025. Removing that income, he argued, threatened the livelihoods of people who had little influence over gambling policy. “Changing this provisional measure strikes at the heart of every club; it destroys their main source of survival,” Montenegro said. The clubs challenged the speed of the reversal as well as its substance. Montenegro contrasted Brazil’s brief adjustment window with the longer transitions adopted elsewhere for restrictions on betting advertising. “In Italy, 10 months. In Brazil, 10 days,” he said. “No market anywhere restricted betting company advertising in 10 days.” His comparison concerned advertising restrictions; prohibiting the activity itself, he argued, demanded still greater caution. The consequences would fall unevenly. Smaller clubs have fewer alternative sponsors, while women’s football and youth development could be among the first programmes to lose funding. Botafogo’s representatives warned that lost sponsorship revenue would affect both its academy and women’s team, while disrupting the planning of a club undergoing judicial restructuring. The dispute also extends to the price operators paid for permission to trade. Representing Cruzeiro, José Francisco Manssur challenged the government’s retention of R$30m authorisation payments despite terminating licences early. “It is a truly confiscatory measure,” he said. His objection added another dimension to the clubs’ case: the state was withdrawing permission to operate while keeping the money paid to secure it. PT argues prohibition is the only solution Lula’s intervention two months ago triggered a 120-day period for Congress to terminate the 2024 Bets Law and return Brazil back to a federal prohibition of gambling. The ban was effectively an election pledge, coming just nine days before Brazilians went to the polls in the 2026 presidential elections, Lula won the election against Flavio Bolsonaro of the Liberal Party, who had also considered an online gambling ban in his own manifesto. Lula’s measure prohibits the “operation, offering, intermediation and advertising of fixed-odds betting”, reversing the government’s previous approach to regulating sports betting and online casino games under the Bets Law (14,790/2023). Defending its decision, the PT government offered the blunt admission that regulation of online gambling had failed, and placed the health and finances of the general public at risk. As such, prohibition is a legitimate action, since public safety should deny the ambitions of businesses that entered the legal market in 2025. Two years since the application of the Bets Law, the PT government believes it holds a right to intervene as “social costs have become intolerable”. Supporting prohibition, Attorney General Jorge Messias identified weaknesses in the protections and safeguards of the current regime. Messias noted that policy is too reliant on the self-constraint of the consumer. Messias views a dis-balance in protections within a high-risk sector as deposit limits and voluntary breaks offer uncertain protection when the capacity to stop is itself impaired. As a result, the PT can defend its action of a state intervention by imposing restrictions on access to platforms, advertising and payments. Prohibition is a just outcome argued by AG Messias and Justice Minister Wellington Lima e Silva. Reforms and alternative policies were dismissed. Messias rejected the suggestion that unlicensed operators’ existence justified preserving some form of regulated industry. The PT defence noted that the effectiveness of prohibition will depend heavily on toughened enforcement by government agencies. Congress: All or Nothing! The Supreme Federal Court is due to hear constitutional challenges to the betting ban, including evidence that was brought by the National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL). The STF notes the sensitivities of regulating an effective gambling market, yet the PT government has placed it in the difficult position of judging an all-or-nothing outcome of prohibition. In Congress, lawmakers have submitted 99 amendments to Provisional Measure 1,394/2026. The proposals will undergo committee scrutiny before votes in the Chamber of Deputies and Senate, which can approve, amend or reject the measure. The next deadline is 23 November, when its initial 60-day period expires. If voting remains incomplete, the measure will automatically receive a further 60-day extension. Congress’s forthcoming recess will pause proceedings.