This Sunday, October 25, Brazil went to the polls to choose the President of the Republic for the 2027-2030 term. The result secured a fourth term for Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. For the gaming and betting sector, it is worth pragmatically assessing what this continuity may represent.
It’s hard, I confess, to set feelings aside. We all have a worldview and convictions about what would be best for the country. That is natural and healthy in a democracy. I promise, however, to make an effort. The reader will find here neither celebration nor lament, but an attempt at a cold-eyed look.
Lula has openly expressed his opposition to the betting sector. The issuing of the provisional measure that banned the activity was the most forceful expression of this position. Even so, his shift in tone toward a market that his own government helped regulate has always seemed to me to have an electoral component. And the election has passed.
This does not guarantee a reopening of dialogue. But it does allow us to ask how much of the stance adopted during the campaign will remain as government policy.
There is, however, a question the sector needs to face before attributing its fate exclusively to politics: we have never managed to establish a convincing narrative about responsible gambling.
An uncomfortable truth
We got the tone of advertising wrong, as well as the way we competed. We talked too much about the advantages of each operation and showed too little about how we would protect people exposed to the risks of the activity. Except for a few isolated initiatives that gained some media attention, we concentrated resources and attention on acronyms like CAC and ROI, customer acquisition cost and return on investment. We devoted less attention to an equally important asset: how we are seen by society.
We left the ball bouncing for anyone who wanted to kick it.
I don’t believe this was decisive for the election outcome. But it gave the president arguments and reduced our ability to contest the solution put forward by the government.
The message that “the bets are over” is simple and politically powerful. Explaining why a ban does not eliminate demand, the risks of addiction, or the illegal supply requires more work. And it requires, above all, credibility.
In the month following the issuance of the provisional measure, the sector failed to make this distinction sufficiently clear. The ban on the authorized market could be presented as a response to the problems of gambling, even though eliminating regulated operators does not mean eliminating the activity. There is a risk that demand will migrate precisely toward environments with fewer protection mechanisms.
Now that the election is over, two institutional fronts are capturing the market’s attention.
At the Federal Supreme Court (STF), Justice Luiz Fux may rule on the requests to suspend the effects of the provisional measure. A favorable decision could pave the way for the resumption of regulated activities, depending on the scope of the ruling.
In the National Congress, it will be up to lawmakers to decide whether the measure will be converted into law, amended, or rejected. It may also lose effectiveness if it is not voted on within the constitutional deadline.
These decisions are fundamental, but none of them alone will resolve the sector’s credibility problem. A legal victory may allow operations to resume. It does not guarantee that society will recognize value in that resumption.
Revisiting regulation
Regulation needs to be revisited, even if it seems early. Brazil built a framework with relevant tools for oversight, control, and bettor protection. Its existence, however, is not enough to demonstrate its effectiveness.
Public authorities need to make the fight against illegal supply more effective. The sector, in turn, needs to demonstrate the results of its responsible gambling policies and its prevention of gambling-related disorders.
We have an obligation to explain what risks we have identified, how we intervene, and what these interventions produce. It is not enough to provide protection tools if we cannot demonstrate that they work. Nor is it enough to promote awareness campaigns while commercial practices move in the opposite direction.
This includes accepting limits on acquisition, advertising, and customer retention when there are signs of risky behavior. In certain situations, protecting the player will require giving up revenue. The willingness to do so will give substance to the discourse of responsibility.
An adult’s freedom to gamble must coexist with concrete duties on the part of those offering the product. A regulated environment needs to allow informed choices and to act when there are signs of loss of control. This is how the industry will be able to defend its legitimacy with more consistency.
If the authorization framework is reinstated, the renewal horizon for the first licenses, at the end of their five-year cycle, will offer another opportunity for evaluation. Until then, the market will need to demonstrate its value through results: the ability to protect consumers, comply with rules, and help reduce the space for illegal offerings.
Perhaps the industry won’t be able to recover its credibility before the next decisions by the STF and Congress. But it can start earning it now.
To do so, it will need to accept that responsible gambling must also impose limits on its own commercial strategies. It is this willingness, demonstrated in practice, that will give consistency to the call for dialogue. The election is over. The responsibility to build a sustainable market remains.