Brazilian poll shows 58% of voters would not change their vote over online betting restrictions

In the final stretch before Brazil’s elections, online sports betting has become a favorite target for politicians across the spectrum. But the polling data says that attacking bets is not a reliable way to win votes — which matters for any PSP or acquiring partner trying to read political risk around the sector.

1. The clearest number comes from a More in Common/Ipsos-Ipec survey conducted between July 4 and 8 with 2,000 people interviewed in person across 130 municipalities, with a margin of error of 2 percentage points. When asked whether a candidate’s support for restrictions on bets would change their vote, 58% said it would not.
2. Another 24% said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports restrictions, 12% said they would be less likely, and 7% did not know how to जवाब—sorry, did not answer. Put differently, 70% of respondents either do not care about the issue as a voting criterion or react negatively to it.
3. The interesting part for payment and risk teams is that this 58% of indifference held steady across every segment the survey examined: gender, age, education, household income, race, religion, and voting intention. The variations were all within the margin of error. In other words, this was not a niche effect confined to one voter pocket.
4. That does not mean the public is comfortable with the sector. The article cites an AtlasIntel/Latam Pulse Brasil survey reported by Estadão in which 86,7% of Brazilians consider online bets harmful to society. So the reputational problem is real. The point is narrower: criticism of betting does not automatically translate into more votes for politicians promising tighter restrictions.
5. A second survey by Cruz Consulting, commissioned by ANJL and released on Wednesday (9/9), found a different result among beneficiaries of social programs: 68,1% said bets should not be used as a voting criterion. The source text cuts off before giving the full methodology, but the direction is clear enough for anyone watching Brazil’s political noise around gambling.

For PSPs, acquirers, and bank partners, the practical takeaway is simple: in Brazil, anti-bets rhetoric may be loud, but polling does not show it as a strong vote-winner. That makes the policy risk worth tracking, but not easy to overread from campaign talk alone.