Brazil's betting ban: 36,905 sites removal requests and a warning about the illegal market
At a public hearing on 4 November, 34 groups argued before Brazil's Supreme Federal Court over Provisional Measure 1.394, which banned betting. Industry bodies warned it would push players to illegal sites, while ministers said the earlier regulated model failed to protect families.
South Africa is also split between regulated betting and a large offshore online casino market that the National Gambling Act does not licence. Brazil is a live example of the argument over whether prohibition or regulation protects players better. It does not change any rule here, but it shows how regulators weigh enforcement against consumer protection.
What happened
A public hearing at Brazil's Supreme Federal Court heard from 34 entities on Provisional Measure 1.394, the government order that banned betting in the country. The industry association ANJL is challenging the measure and has asked Minister Luiz Fux to suspend it while the court considers the case. Fux will decide the next steps, and the hearing itself did not settle the question.
The figures cited
The Ministry of Justice said it requested the removal of 36,905 websites between 25 September and 29 October. An ANJL representative said betting volumes fell 32% in the latest three months of Ministry of Finance data against the same period a year earlier, and that more than 60% of the market was in the regulated segment before the ban.
A lawyer for the club Botafogo said the regulator had authorised 188 websites, while more than 66,000 illegal sites were blocked over 20 months of regulation. Another speaker cited regulator figures showing 70% of bettors spent up to BRL50 a month, with sessions averaging 12 minutes. These are claims made by interested parties at a hearing.
The two sides
Industry speakers argued licensed operators had built monitoring for suspicious bets and helped fight match-fixing and money laundering, and that unlicensed sites would offer none of that. The government, through its justice, health and attorney general ministers, argued the regulated model had not given families enough protection and pointed to indicators of problem gambling.
Retail and industry confederations also spoke against betting, citing debt and health concerns.
What it means for South African players
The core question is one South Africans know: when a market is restricted, does play stop or move offshore? Players here should remember that not being licensed in South Africa is different from accepting South African players, and that offshore sites carry their own protections and risks. Our responsible gambling page lists support options.
Watch for Fux's ruling on suspending the measure.