O futuro do iGaming no Brasil
O futuro do iGaming no Brasil. (Imagem: Divulgação)

The Brazilian iGaming market has reached levels never seen in its entire history. Long before there was talk of betting on sports or playing casino games online, gambling had already been banned.

It was only in 2015 that discussions began about the legalization and regulation of gambling and betting in Brazil. Since then, the Brazilian iGaming market has seen the sanction of laws 13,756 in 2018 and 14,790 in 2018. In addition to the creation of the Secretariat of Prizes and Bets (SPA) and the regulations created by the Ministry of Treasury.

Even with all the changes, there are still many criticisms of the regulatory model adopted by Brazil. The president of the Senate himself, Rodrigo Pacheco, stated that it was a mistake to approve the betting law before the approval of land-based casinos. Amidst so many controversies, the market, even so, continues towards operationalization of the new regulations.

For Brazilians, it is still uncertain how the market will work and what other changes will be adopted. The good news is that some international cases can serve as an example for the future of iGaming in Brazil.

European countries help with expectations for the Brazilian market

A study published by LCA, in partnership with the Brazilian Institute of Responsible Gaming (IBJR), presented some examples of European countries that have already regulated gambling and sports betting even before Brazil regulated this activity.

Throughout the study, the highlights are the international regulatory scenario in France, Germany and England. The English, for example, have one of the oldest regulations ever made.

The first regulation of gambling and betting in the UK came with the Gambling Act in 2005, under the management of the UK Gambling Commission. In the case of England, the market is fully regulated and websites must be licensed to operate in it. It is these types of rules that sites like Tenexcasino.com must respect in order to operate legally.

France has updated its online betting law, but it has a very high tax burden. Estimates indicate that the total amount of taxes paid by legal operators in the country exceeds 50%.

In Brazil, the tax burden on betting houses and online casinos is 12% of the Gross Gaming Revenue (GGR), which consists of the operators’ gross revenue. In other words, a rate much lower than that of European countries. This, in itself, is an advantage for operators to view the Brazilian market favorably.

Possible changes in sponsorship of Brazilian football teams

Another aspect that may also undergo changes throughout the validity of the betting law in Brazil is the sponsorship of Brazilian football teams. In the midst of the 2024 Series A, for example, 19 of the 20 clubs that participated in the Brazilian Championship were sponsored by betting sites.

The estimated total in betting house sponsorships, in Series A alone, exceeded R$600 million in 2024. This gives an overview of the impact that websites have in this segment and was one of the arguments that led lawyer Antonio Carlos de Almeida Castro , representative of Cruzeiro at the public hearing of bets at the STF, arguing in favor of the activity.

“Without bets, football does not exist in Brazil. If today a threshold suspended betting, the Brazilian championship would end” – commented Antonio during the public hearing. The concern is due to the fact that there are some people who are still against the legalization and regulation of the activity.

Another point that causes concern for Brazilian clubs is the fact that sports betting dominates sponsorship in the main football leagues around the world. Spain, for example, prohibits sponsorship of bookmakers and football clubs. If this happened in Brazil, in the view of some experts, it could represent a problem.

The future is still uncertain for the iGaming market in Brazil. However, examples from other countries can help the federal government in developing extremely important regulations to protect players and provide greater transparency in a market that was completely deregulated.