UOL columnists criticize Brazil’s possible betting ban by provisional measure as “cheap demagoguery”

Brazil’s reported plan to ban online bets by provisional measure is drawing criticism for its pace and for the way it would sit alongside state-run gambling that remains legal. For PSPs and operators, the real issue is not the rhetoric — it is whether Brazil is heading toward a sudden rule change, with taxes, licensing, and enforcement all moving at once.

1. On Thursday (24/9), UOL columnist Alexandre Borges called the possibility of a federal ban on online betting in Brazil “cheap and very complicated demagoguery” during UOL News, 2ª edição on Canal UOL. The trigger for the discussion was the signal that President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva may sign a provisional measure to end online sports betting, with implementation expected in the coming weeks.
2. Borges argued that the debate is inconsistent because Brazil still allows alcohol, cigarettes, and other addictive products. He said the key question is what principle would justify banning betting while leaving other potentially harmful activities in place, and who gets to draw that line between prohibition and regulation.
3. He also pointed to the coexistence of private betting and state-run gambling in Brazil, citing Mega-Sena and other lotteries. His point was not that the products are identical, but that any broader anti-gambling argument becomes messy when the state itself runs games of chance.
4. Borges did acknowledge that the betting market in Brazil is poorly controlled and said it needs more regulation and higher taxes. What he criticized was the speed of the shift from “everything is fine” to an outright ban by decree, which he compared to the U.S. Prohibition era, saying such a move could create more politics than social benefit.
5. He also floated the idea that the provisional measure could be introduced with the expectation that Congress would strike it down, allowing the government to preserve a favorable political narrative either way. That is the sort of maneuver that matters to payment firms, because it turns licensing and processing rules into moving targets.

UOL columnist Tatiana Farah said Lula’s campaign would have preferred to delay any announcement on bets because it would attract criticism. She also raised the enforcement problem: if online betting is banned, how does the government deal with illegal casinos and other unlicensed gambling channels?