Published today in Poder360, one of Brazil’s leading political and public affairs media platforms, this opinion article by Emanuel Macedo de Medeiros, Global CEO of SIGA and Chairman & CEO of SIGA LATIN AMERICA, addresses the ongoing debate surrounding the future of Brazil’s regulated betting market.
Against the backdrop of public discussion over possible changes to the country’s current regulatory framework, Macedo de Medeiros argues for a rigorous, evidence-based approach that clearly distinguishes licensed operators from the illegal market.
The article examines the potential implications of a prohibition on licensed betting operators and calls instead for stronger regulation, more effective enforcement and enhanced consumer protection.
It also addresses several issues at the heart of Sports Betting Integrity, including responsible gambling, advertising, the protection of minors, anti-money laundering measures, the monitoring of suspicious betting activity, legal certainty and the fight against illegal operators.
The article was originally published in Portuguese by Poder360 on 25 September 2026.
Read the original article in Portuguese here.
Demonising Betting Does Not Protect Brazil – It Strengthens the Illegal Market
By Emanuel Macedo de Medeiros, Global CEO, SIGA; Chairman & CEO, SIGA LATIN AMERICA
Banning licensed betting operators, as has recently been suggested in the media, would be a serious mistake — one whose full consequences are difficult to predict, but whose effects would almost certainly be damaging.
It would not put an end to betting. It would put an end to the rules.
It would not eliminate demand. It would not protect bettors. It would not stop money from circulating. It would simply push millions of consumers towards illegal platforms, many of them operating outside Brazil, without licences, taxation, limits, or any obligation to account for their activities.
The result would be a more opaque, more dangerous market that would be incomparably harder to control.
At the time of writing, no Provisional Measure has been published, and no official text is publicly available. It is therefore unclear whether any eventual measure would target specific online casino games, impose further restrictions on advertising, or seek to prohibit legally authorised Sports betting as well.
That distinction is fundamental.
A decision of this magnitude cannot be taken impulsively, built on the indiscriminate demonisation of an entire sector, or presented as though all operators were the same.
They are not.
SIGA does not represent betting operators. It does not speak on behalf of the Government or the opposition. It does not intervene in electoral campaigns, and does not support candidates. Its independence is absolute.
This is not a position in favour of betting operators. It is a position in favour of rules.
It is a position in defence of integrity, good governance, legal certainty, consumers, and Sport. This is not about challenging the President of the Republic, the Brazilian Government, or any political force. It is about warning of the concrete consequences of a public-policy choice.
- The Electoral Calendar Cannot Replace Rigour
There is, however, a question of process and timing that cannot be ignored.
It is unusual — and highly inadvisable — for such a profound change to the legal framework to be announced in the middle of an election campaign without having been preceded by a rigorous, evidence-based, and inclusive public debate; a serious assessment of its impact; and consultation with consumers, regulators, licensed operators, Sports organisations, public-health experts, and other affected sectors.
The issue is not the Government’s right to govern or to propose legislative changes.
The issue is how a decision of this magnitude should be prepared, substantiated, and legitimised.
SIGA neither presumes nor judges political motives. But it cannot ignore the context either.
Announcing a structural transformation during an electoral period, without publicly available studies, without public consultation, and without an official text open to scrutiny, inevitably creates the perception that an issue of this seriousness is being subordinated to the immediate pressures of an election campaign.
Public policy cannot be made to the rhythm of the electoral calendar. It must be based on evidence, careful consideration, and dialogue. It must respect the law, serve the public interest, and take into account the rights and legitimate interests of all those who will be affected.
When electoral urgency replaces regulatory rigour, the line between public policy and demagoguery becomes dangerously thin.
Highlighting that risk does not compromise SIGA’s independence. It confirms it. True independence means applying the same principles, and making the same demands, of any Government, any political party, and in any political circumstances.
The debate taking place within the Government itself demonstrates, moreover, that this issue is far from simple or consensual. There are legitimate concerns about the loss of enforcement capacity, the growth of the illegal market, the erosion of regulatory intelligence, legal certainty, and the impact on companies that were authorised to operate by the Brazilian State itself.
Those concerns cannot be ignored.
- Fixing the System Does Not Mean Dismantling It
Over recent years, Brazil has made significant legislative and regulatory progress.
It created an authorisation regime, established operating requirements, charged licensing fees, taxed the activity, and imposed obligations relating to anti-money laundering, consumer protection, responsible gambling, and the integrity of Sporting competitions.
That experience represents an important international reference point that can — and should — continue to be improved.
Does the system have shortcomings? Of course it does.
Advertising has, in many cases, become excessive and intrusive. The exposure of children and young people is unacceptable. The prevention of gambling-related harm needs to be strengthened. Aggressive commercial practices must be addressed. Self-exclusion mechanisms, deposit limits, and the identification of at-risk behaviour must operate far more effectively.
But none of these problems justifies dismantling the regulated market.
They justify stronger regulation.
Fixing a system is not the same as destroying it. Regulating better is not the same as banning.
The State’s first obligation should be to distinguish between those who comply with the law, and those who operate outside it.
Licensed operators accepted the rules established by Brazil. They paid licensing fees. They established companies in the country. They made substantial investments. They created jobs. They entered into long-term contracts. They financed clubs, competitions, and media organisations. They submitted themselves to regulatory oversight.
They cannot now be treated as though they were equivalent to illegal operators that pay no taxes, offer no consumer protection, do not cooperate with authorities, and comply with no integrity obligations whatsoever.
A State governed by the rule of law cannot invite companies to invest, charge them millions for authorisation, and then, shortly afterwards, remove the very legal basis of their activity without consequences.
Compensation may not be automatic. Litigation, however, would be inevitable.
And the damage would not be confined to the courts.
- The Biggest Winner Would Be the Illegal Market
A total ban would amount to an extraordinary gift to illegal operators.
It would hand them demand, consumers, and a substantial share of a market that can currently still be identified, supervised, and taxed.
Bettors do not disappear by decree. They change platforms.
They move to websites with no presence in Brazil, no legal representation, no guarantees of payment, no data protection, no self-exclusion mechanisms, and no effective complaints procedures.
Who would lose?
Consumers would lose, because they would be more exposed to risk.
The State would lose, because it would lose both regulatory oversight and tax revenue.
Sport would lose, because the mechanisms for monitoring suspicious betting activity, and cooperating against match-fixing, would be weakened.
The authorities would lose, because the money would continue to circulate, but with less transparency, less traceability, and greater exposure to money laundering.
The only winner would be the illegal market.
When the State drives the legal market out, it does not drive gambling out.
It drives the rules out.
- Better Regulation Is the Way Forward
There is a responsible alternative. But it requires political courage, regulatory competence, and effective enforcement capacity.
Advertising must be subject to strict controls. Any communication targeting minors must be prohibited. Times, content, and formats must be restricted. Messages presenting betting as a route to wealth, an investment, or a financial solution must be prevented. Deposit limits, self-exclusion mechanisms, and the early identification of at-risk behaviour must be strengthened. Operators must be held accountable for failures in preventing gambling-related harm.
It is equally necessary to block illegal websites and payment channels, hold intermediaries, influencers, and advertisers accountable when they promote unauthorised platforms, and deepen international cooperation against illegal operators.
What must be prohibited is illegal gambling — not licensed activity that complies with the rules.
Brazil does not have to choose between permissiveness and prohibition. That is a false choice.
It can improve the legislation it has built. It can address excesses. It can raise standards. It can protect consumers more effectively. It can demand more from licensed operators. And it can take serious action against those operating outside the law.
Destroying the regulated market would not be a demonstration of strength. It would represent an abdication of the duty to regulate.
SIGA will remain fully independent and available to provide technical input to all Brazilian institutions. Without political alignment. Without commercial interests. Without convenient silences.
This debate is too important to be reduced to extreme positions, or subordinated to the political expediencies of the moment.
Banning legal betting will not put an end to betting.
It will put an end to the rules.
And when the rules disappear, the illegal market wins.
— THE END —
ABOUT SIGA
SIGA is the world’s leading organisation for Sport Integrity. We are creating a whole new landscape for the sports industry by delivering independent global rating and certification for world Sport to ensure it is governed and operates under the highest integrity standards: The SIGA Universal Standards.
Funded by our Members, SIGA is a non for profit global independent organisation with one aim: To ensure the sport industry is governed under the highest integrity standards so that the values of sport are protected.
SIGA is the only organisation to bring together sport, governments, academia, international organisations, sponsors, business, rights holders, NGOs and professional services companies, from every region in the world, around a common cause of fostering greater integrity throughout sport.
SIGA is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, as a non for-profit association, and comprises of the following continental subsidiaries: SIGA AMERICA, SIGA EUROPE and SIGA LATIN AMERICA.
For more information on SIGA, including its vision, mission and reform agenda, please refer to the website: www.siga-sport.com and FAQs.
To contact SIGA, please email: comms@siga-sport.com.
@Sigalliance – Twitter, Instagram, Linkedin | #SIGA #SIGAWoW