The neighbor’s ant and the elephant at home: why regulated betting can’t use the illegal market as an alibi

Thiago Iusim’s point is simple: regulated betting operators are right to push for tougher action against the illegal market, but that does not buy them a free pass on responsible gambling, controls, or operational discipline. For PSPs, acquirers, and banks, the practical test is not what an operator says about compliance; it is what it can prove in live operations.

1. In Brazil’s current betting debate, the illegal market has become a convenient explanation for a long list of structural problems: household debt, loss of purchasing power, informality, weak financial education, low savings capacity, fragile mental health, and pressure on consumption. The article’s argument is that betting did not create these problems, even if it now sits at the center of the public conversation.
2. The same logic, the text says, also shows up inside the regulated industry itself. Regulators, media, and parts of the economy may focus on illegal operators, but regulated companies cannot use that as a shield to avoid looking at their own shortcomings. Having a .bet.br domain does not matter much if the operational controls are weak.
3. Public Responsible Gambling messaging is not enough on its own. A policy page on the website, a footer disclaimer saying “bet responsibly,” or a formal commitment to player protection does not prove that the difference between regulated and illegal operators exists in practice. The article puts the burden on operations: spotting risk signals, taking preventive measures, and showing that the company saw the issue, understood it, acted, and documented the action.
4. The criticism of illegal betting is valid, but it does not cancel the regulated market’s own obligations. The piece argues that operators cannot demand strict enforcement against those outside the law while treating Responsible Gambling as a side topic internally. For payment providers and banking partners, that is the relevant part: institutional credibility depends on operational evidence, not branding.
5. The article also names the classic deflection move: “what about tobacco?”, “what about alcohol?”, “what about revolving credit cards?”, “what about banks?” That is whataboutism. In other words, answering criticism with a different industry does not solve the original compliance problem; it just changes the subject.

For high-risk PSPs, the takeaway is straightforward. If a betting merchant cannot demonstrate player-protection controls in practice, the presence of a regulated license does not eliminate reputational or operational risk. The illegal market may be a real problem, but it is not a substitute for internal discipline.