IBJR disputes evidence that banning regulated betting would protect Brazilian society
Regulation2 min read
An IBJR statement responding to the IEPS dossier argues that it does not show that banning regulated betting would protect society. The institute says Brazil’s regulated market introduced player safeguards in early 2025, including centralised self-exclusion used by 1.2 million people by August 2026, and says the current provisional measure would cut a 2025 health-sector transfer of R$45.8 million to zero.
Brazil’s Instituto Brasileiro de Jogo Responsável (IBJR) said an IEPS dossier does not establish that banning the regulated betting market would protect society.
The IBJR said Brazil’s health sector received R$45.8m in 2025 under regulation and that companies had supported increasing the transfer. It said the current provisional measure reduces that transfer to zero, leaving treatment and action against illegal activity to the public budget.
Betting rules introduced in Brazil in early 2025 included identity checks, a ban on betting by minors, spending limits and centralised self-exclusion, the IBJR said. The self-exclusion system had been used by 1.2 million people by August 2026. Betting was prohibited for over 3 million recipients of social programmes, and over 66 thousand illegal sites had been blocked. The active bettor population had fallen by 7.6% even before provisional measure 1.394/2026.
The IBJR said a 400% increase cited in the debate concerned work absences, which rose from 67 in 2023 to 363 in 2025. It said the Labour Ministry had noted a lack of data to link dismissals directly to addiction. The IBJR said a figure of 12.8 million people at risk came from interviews in 2022 and 2023, a period that the authors said could not establish current prevalence. It said R$30.6bn was a theoretical estimate using costs imported from the UK, rather than actual spending by Brazil’s public health system, SUS.
The IBJR said IEPS favoured treating betting as tobacco and alcohol are treated, and noted that both are legal and taxed in Brazil under restrictive rules. It argued that recommendations including advertising rules, a regulator with sanctioning powers and medical data sharing depended on a functioning formal system. The IBJR said it favoured enforcement and making SUS the main recipient of the proceeds.