Flamengo moves to join Brazil’s Supreme Court challenge to betting ad ban as clubs seek transition period

Flamengo has asked Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court (STF) to join the challenge to a provisional measure that would ban fixed-odds betting in the country. For high-risk operators and their payment partners, the real issue is not the court filing itself but the knock-on effect on sponsorship money and the timeline for pulling betting brands out of football.

1. The club filed its request on Tuesday (29/9), asking Justice Luiz Fux, the rapporteur in the case, to admit Flamengo as an amicus curiae in Direct Action of Unconstitutionality No. 8.027/DF. Flamengo also wants its submission considered at the stage when the court reviews the request for an injunction suspending the provisional measure, and it asked to be included in any public hearing or conciliation hearing scheduled in the case.
2. The measure in question is MP nº 1.394/2026, announced by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva on Friday (25/9). It would block betting websites from 5 October 2026, a deadline Brazilian football groups say is unworkable. Flamengo moved before the broader coordinated action that Brazilian clubs are preparing to file in the same direction.
3. Flamengo’s main argument is financial. Its filing cites the master sponsorship deal with Betano, valued at about R$ 268.5 million per season and running until the end of 2028. The club says the ten-day period set by the MP to remove betting brand names is too short and warns that a sudden loss of sponsorship income would hit football, Olympic sports, women’s football and youth academies.
4. Since the measure was signed, Flamengo president Luiz Eduardo Baptista, Bap, has publicly criticized the federal government’s decision. In other words, this is not just a legal filing; it is also part of a wider push by football to keep betting money in place for longer.
5. Brazil’s top-flight clubs are organizing a collective filing with the STF and intend to ask for a six-month transition period before the ban takes effect. The National Union of Professional Football Associations (Sinafut) has already made the same argument in the appeal brought by the National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) and the Brazilian Institute of Responsible Gaming (IBJR), saying that 5 October 2026 lands in the final stretch of national competitions and state finals, when brand exposure and contract monetization are highest.

For payment providers, the practical takeaway is straightforward: if the ban or a transition period changes sponsor flows, it changes the payment volume and risk profile around Brazil’s football ecosystem too. The clubs are not arguing about abstract policy here; they are fighting over the timing of revenue disruption.