The debate is not about revenue. It is about protecting bettors

As Brazil’s mainstream media tallies the tax revenue that could disappear if bets are banned, the core issue is getting lost: only a regulated, controlled, and state-supervised market protects citizens from illegal gambling and addiction. For PSPs and operators, that is the real policy line that matters.

1. After the election, major Brazilian outlets — Folha, Estadão, O Globo, Valor, CNN Brasil, Metrópoles, and Poder360 — turned to the fiscal challenge facing the reelected government, the nervous reaction of financial markets, and the cost of campaign promises. In that coverage, the end of bets is usually framed through one angle: how much revenue the state would lose.
2. The author says that framing misses the main point. A ban would not make millions of Brazilians stop betting; it would push them into a market with no rules, no oversight, and no one to turn to when things go wrong.
3. The illegal market is already visible. The text points to a large number of illegal sites advertising on Instagram and cites one example seen the day before: a platform called “Betamos” using the link https://betanoss.site, described as a blatant imitation of an authorized brand, including its logo, designed to confuse less attentive bettors.
4. In that setup, the user has no guarantee of receiving winnings, no protection for personal data, and no dispute mechanism. By contrast, the regulated market requires authorized companies to identify bettors by CPF, with identity verification that blocks minors; payments must be made only from accounts in the bettor’s own name; and operators must offer self-exclusion tools, deposit and time limits, advertising rules, and customer support channels.
5. The article’s health argument is straightforward: compulsive gambling is recognized as a disease, and treatment requires identifying people at risk, giving them control tools, and funding prevention and treatment policies. That only works when the state can see the market. With prohibition, the public authorities lose sight of who is betting, how much, and how often — which means the vulnerable bettor keeps playing, just without barriers.

The practical takeaway for high-risk payment providers is simple: a regulated market gives the state visibility, enforcement, and payment traceability; prohibition shifts activity to unregulated channels where none of those controls exist.