Bet bans are “unrealistic,” and deadline-based regulation is the only workable path, says PVC

Brazilian journalist Paulo Vinicius Coelho, known as PVC, argues that a sudden ban on bets would not eliminate betting demand — it would just push it back into the illegal market, where there is less consumer protection and no public control over debt. For high-risk operators and payment providers, the point is straightforward: the debate is not ban versus no ban, but how fast a market can be regulated without driving volume underground.

1. PVC, writing in UOL Esportes, says a prohibition on sports betting may sound well-intentioned, but it is unrealistic in a world where technological barriers rarely work. His view is that regulation with a deadline is the only viable route for the sector.
2. His core argument is practical: banning betting would not remove bettors or addicted users. Instead, it would send them back to the clandestine market, where there is no public oversight of indebtedness and far less protection overall.
3. To make the point, he recalls that during the Michel Temer administration, people were already asking him for picks on lower-profile European matches such as Osasuna x Betis, even though betting was illegal at the time. In other words, users were still accessing foreign websites without much difficulty.
4. Juca Kfouri makes a similar regulatory case in the note “Bets: restringir sim, proibir é inútil.” He says Michel Temer legalized bets, Jair Bolsonaro left the sector unregulated for four years, and then Lula inherited the mess. Kfouri also argues that the current framework was only partial, especially on advertising limits, and that regulators lacked the tools to police illegal operators.
5. PVC does acknowledge progress after the work of the Secretaria da Fazenda: legalized sites began paying taxes, creating jobs, and taking on obligations related to anti-addiction measures. But he says the model still needs work, with ad restrictions and tighter enforcement only making sense if operators are given enough time to adjust.

The England example is the useful one here. Premier League clubs had three years to remove betting brands from the front of their shirts, and 11 teams adapted without the industry collapsing. That is the sort of transition window PVC sees as essential: not a theatrical ban, but a timetable that gives the football and betting ecosystem room to move.