No STF, Brazilian clubs say MP das Bets would cut Série A revenue by R$ 1 billion and leave them 10 days to adapt

Flamengo, Fluminense, Botafogo, Cruzeiro, São Paulo, Corinthians, and the Fenapaf took their case to Luiz Fux at a public hearing on MP nº 1.394/2026, arguing that the betting ban hits contracts already signed, cuts into club revenue, and creates legal uncertainty. For high-risk payment providers, the useful part is not the football drama: it is the blunt reminder that when a jurisdiction rewrites the rules on gambling ads and sponsorships, the commercial stack underneath can move fast.

1. Fluminense president Mattheus Montenegro said Serie A clubs had about R$ 3 billion in commercial revenue in 2025, and R$ 1 billion of that came from betting houses, or 34%. He added that 14 of the 20 top-flight clubs had betting sponsorships.
2. Flamengo vice-president Flávio Willeman said the club’s betting contracts were signed under the law in force at the time and should not be broken overnight. He said Flamengo planned the next four or five years around those agreements and estimated a loss of about R$ 430 million in annual revenue across football and Olympic sports, with risk to more than 1.200 employees.
3. Willeman argued that the MP does not meet the standards of reasonableness, saying it does not stop illegal betting from growing and avoids what he called the real issue: regulating the sector properly. Flamengo also challenged the MP on constitutional grounds, saying there was no relevance or urgency to justify it.
4. Montenegro broke down a club’s revenue into five streams: player sales, broadcasting rights, sponsorships, membership programs, and ticket sales. In his view, the MP affects sponsorships directly and broadcasting indirectly, because broadcasters sell ad inventory that is mainly bought by betting companies. For Fluminense, which he said has recurring revenue between R$ 600 million and R$ 700 million, the impact would be R$ 200 million.
5. Beyond the club balance sheets, the hearing produced a simple request: legal certainty and a transition regime. For PSPs and acquiring teams serving betting merchants, that is the practical signal to watch, because ad rules and sponsorship bans can change cash flows before anyone finishes re-papering the contracts.