Brazil’s health minister argues for a betting ban, but 13,241 illegal sites were already flagged for blocking

Alexandre Padilha says betting prohibition is a public-health measure. The problem is that Brazil’s MP 1.394/2026 appears to have pushed players toward the part of the market where the SUS has no reach: offshore and illegal sites, beyond the controls that exist in the regulated system.

1. Padilha’s article in Poder360 argues that there is no such thing as “partial treatment” and that the disease must be eliminated “as a whole.” In practice, Brazil’s legal framework for alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs is built around harm reduction, not pretending that demand disappears when supply is banned. The piece makes the same mistake Prohibition made in the U.S.: if you shut the legal channel, demand moves elsewhere.
2. Since the publication of MP 1.394 on 25 September, the government has already sent 13,241 illegal betting sites for blocking. A Blask survey found increased searches for offshore platforms right after the MP, and said 57% of Brazilian bettors had visited at least one unlicensed site in the previous 90 days. LCA Consultores estimates that betting in the illegal market could generate between R$ 26 billion and R$ 30 billion in 2026.
3. The minister of Finance, Dario Durigan, warned in June that a blanket ban could create an illicit, uncontrolled, and unregulated market, with more losses for the country. Three months later, the government did exactly what Durigan had advised against. That is not a minor policy disagreement; for PSPs and acquirers, it is the difference between a contained regulated flow and a messier offshore one.
4. Padilha also points to more than 1.3 million Brazilians requesting self-exclusion as evidence of the system working. The catch is that the Centralized Self-Exclusion Platform only works in the regulated market, where operators must check a CPF before accepting a bet. An illegal site based in Curaçao or Malta does not check against the Ministry of Finance’s registry. With the MP, the very tool cited as proof of consumer protection becomes unusable where it matters most.
5. Official data shows that 35% of users triggered self-exclusion because they had lost control over betting. During the Copa, when requests surged, the daily average jumped from 2,594 in the first half of May to 17,866 between 15 and 28 June. For operators, that is a reminder that self-exclusion is not just a compliance box; it is one of the few practical controls regulators can actually enforce in a licensed market.