Brazil’s ANJL pushes back on Lula’s anti-betting remarks and warns of a move to illegal sites

The National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) has publicly challenged President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s comments in favor of banning or restricting fixed-odds betting in Brazil. For PSPs, acquirers, and banks in the market, the point is straightforward: tighter legal restrictions do not erase demand; they can redirect it to unlicensed channels where there is no KYC, no responsible-gaming tooling, and no practical consumer protection.

1. ANJL said on Wednesday (16/9) that Lula’s remarks relied on experiences from before fixed-odds betting was regulated in Brazil, without clarifying whether those cases involved licensed operators or illegal ones. The association called that basis methodologically flawed for shaping policy toward today’s regulated market.
2. The group’s core argument is what it calls the paradox of prohibition: if legal options are narrowed or shut down, people who want to bet do not simply stop. In practice, demand can move to clandestine platforms, which do not identify bettors, do not offer responsible-gaming mechanisms, and do not have tools to prevent debt escalation.
3. ANJL also warns about the commercial side of that shift. If the regulated market is weakened while demand remains, illegal operators benefit economically. That matters for payment providers because the result is not a cleaner market; it is a less visible one, with more volume flowing outside monitored rails.
4. Instead of restriction, ANJL says the answer is stronger oversight, better controls, and more effective action against the illegal market. The association closed by saying it is available to work with both the federal government and Congress on refining Brazil’s fixed-odds betting regulation, on the condition that responsibility, transparency, consumer protection, and anti-illegal enforcement remain the guiding principles.

What ANJL did not spell out is the exact Lula statements it was reacting to: the note did not provide dates or the specific context, only that the president had referred to betting-related experiences. That leaves the policy signal intact, even if the trigger message is still a bit fuzzy.