November 09, 2026 Brazil

Brazil’s Sport Ministry Found No Consultation or Integrity Study Before Betting Ban

Records searches found no formal input or analysis on match-fixing risks before the nationwide prohibition took effect
Brazil’s Sport Ministry Found No Consultation or Integrity Study Before Betting Ban
Key points
  • The Sport Ministry found no formal consultation before Provisional Measure No. 1.394/2026 was issued.
  • Its sports-betting secretariat found no studies, technical notes or opinions on the ban’s effects on sports integrity.
  • The Finance Ministry had already said it held no impact studies and had identified no unit tasked with a comprehensive assessment.
  • The provisional measure banned fixed-odds betting and related advertising, with short deadlines for operators to withdraw services.

Brazil’s Ministry of Sport found no record that it was formally consulted before the federal government imposed its nationwide fixed-odds betting prohibition, and its specialist sports-betting office found no analysis of the measure’s effects on sports integrity.

The ministry’s Nov. 3 response followed an Access to Information request submitted by BNLData on Sept. 30. The request asked whether the ministry had been consulted on the consequences for combating manipulation of sporting results before Provisional Measure No. 1.394/2026 was issued.

After searching the Electronic Information System and institutional email, the National Secretariat for Sports Betting and Economic Development of Sport found no studies, technical notes or opinions on the prohibition’s integrity effects. The response, issued after an extension of the deadline, was registered under request NUP 58000.001197/2026-21.

The finding adds a sports-integrity dimension to an earlier disclosure by the Ministry of Finance. On Sept. 24, the Finance Ministry said it held no studies on the impact of a potential fixed-odds betting ban. Less than 24 hours later, the government issued the provisional measure.

The Finance Ministry’s Prizes and Betting Secretariat said it had identified no assessments of a total ban, restrictions on online games or advertising curbs across economic, fiscal, regulatory and social measures. It also found no estimates covering regulated-market gross gaming revenue, tax receipts, sports funding, sponsorship agreements, migration to illegal operators, consumer protection or public health.

Nor had the Finance Ministry identified a federal unit formally responsible for a comprehensive assessment. It said such an exercise would require multidisciplinary technical studies, a settled regulatory framework and methodological assumptions that did not yet exist.

The two specialist departments, the Finance Ministry’s Prizes and Betting Secretariat and the Sport Ministry’s National Secretariat for Sports Betting and Economic Development of Sport, both confirmed that they had neither prepared nor been asked to prepare an assessment of the prohibition. Monitoring licensed betting operators has been described as a principal match-fixing control because they must report suspicious wagering patterns to authorities.

The measure prohibits the offering, intermediation and advertising of fixed-odds betting throughout Brazil, including services offered from abroad to people in the country. It covers bets on real sporting events and virtual online-game events, while excluding other lottery types authorised by law.

Under the measure, authorisations issued under Law No. 14.790/2023 were to expire 30 days after publication. Operators had 10 days to make betting websites and applications unavailable, including through app stores, or face blocking. Advertising, marketing and sponsorship connected to fixed-odds betting were also prohibited in physical and digital media.

As covered in our Nov. 3 report, the Sport Ministry separately told the Supreme Federal Court that effective detection and prevention of match-fixing depended on the regulated market’s reporting and cooperation obligations.

The Supreme Court’s public hearing on the measure brought together 34 entities and did not decide whether the prohibition would be suspended, retained with additional safeguards or implemented through a transition process.