Quaest poll says banning betting is popular in Brazil, but it is not winning votes for Lula

The first Quaest poll of Brazil’s second round shows strong support for the proposal to ban sports betting sites and online casinos, but it also shows Lula trailing Flávio Bolsonaro 46% to 44%. For high-risk operators, the point is blunt: a ban can poll well even when it does not translate into electoral momentum for the government pushing it.

1. According to the survey released on Wednesday (14), 64% of respondents said they already knew about and approved the measure, and another 8% said it was a good idea after hearing about it, bringing total approval to 72%. In other words, the anti-betting message is landing.
2. That did not move the voting numbers. Quaest shows Flávio Bolsonaro (PL) at 46% and Lula (PT) at 44% for the October 25 runoff. Three weeks earlier, the government had bet that banning bets could become a kind of plebiscite that would swing the election. The poll suggests voters can like the policy and still vote otherwise.
3. Compared with the September 28 round, when the betting restriction had 62% total approval, support rose by 10 points in a little more than two weeks. That is the period when the PT’s campaign made the issue a central part of its advertising. Even so, Lula did not pull ahead; he entered the second round numerically behind.
4. The same Quaest survey puts government disapproval at 48% and approval at 45%. The gap narrowed, but the negative rating still leads 11 days before the vote. The most popular item in the campaign package was not enough to flip that balance.
5. The original question matters. The poll asked whether respondents approved of banning betting, but it did not spell out the operational consequences. The source says the public was not told that regulation was what allowed the state to identify, limit, and protect bettors, including self-exclusion tools and deposit controls; that more than 40% of betting activity was still in the illegal market even after 22 months of regulation; and that legal beneficiaries of betting tax revenue such as sport, tourism, and public security would lose funds.

For PSPs, acquirers, and banks serving high-risk verticals, this is the familiar pattern: a restriction can become politically useful without resolving the underlying market structure. If the legal channel is blocked, activity does not disappear; it shifts, and the shift usually lands in the part of the market with the least protection and the least visibility.