The prohibition of bets via Provisional Measure is shaking up the sports and financial landscape. Its future, however, rests with Congress and could be challenged in the Supreme Court, creating uncertainty for the billion-dollar betting market.
The recent ban on bets, or fixed-odds betting, determined by Provisional Measure No. 1,394/2026, is already impacting the national scene but is far from being a final decision on the operation of these platforms in Brazil.
Published last Friday (25), the PM began its processing in the National Congress this Monday (28), initiating a crucial period where it could be approved, rejected, or significantly modified by lawmakers.
For Leonardo David Quintiliano, a Law professor at Faculdade ESEG, the debate goes beyond political analysis. He points to a primary constitutional issue: whether the PM truly meets the requirements of relevance and urgency demanded by the Constitution for its issuance.
This point could be key to the future of online bettingregulation in the country.
The relevance of the issue, according to Quintiliano, is relatively easy to sustain. There are serious discussions involving indebtedness, problem gambling, protection of children and adolescents, and irregular use of the platforms. However, the constitutional urgency may be subject to intense debate.
The relevance of the issue is relatively easy to sustain. There are serious discussions involving indebtedness, problem gambling, protection of children and adolescents, and irregular use of the platforms. The constitutional urgency, however, may be subject to discussion
According to the specialist, the main controversy lies in the fact that the Brazilian State itself had been actively regulating the betting market. Law No. 14,790/2023 had already established clear rules for the sector’s operation, and several companies had received formal authorizations to operate under this model.
It is not, therefore, an activity that suddenly emerged the week before the measure was issued
Congress’s Power in the Betting Balance
The Federal Constitution is clear in stating that a Provisional Measure must be submitted for analysis by the National Congress. There, it can be converted into law, amended, or even rejected.
The PM has an initial validity of 60 days, a period that can be extended once for the same duration, according to current constitutional norms.
For Quintiliano, this dynamic allows Congress to address the PM more flexibly, without being limited to an all-or-nothing decision.
Deputies and senators have the prerogative to agree with the restriction of bets, but at the same time, substantially alter the conditions and deadlines initially proposed by the Executive.
This opens the door for an issue that directly concerns betting companies, football clubs, communication companies, advertising agencies, digital platforms, and other businesses that have entered into contracts with the sector: Congress can establish a different transition regime
The current PM sets strict deadlines for the closure of authorized operations, including the revocation of existing permits and the blocking of fixed-odds betting websites and applications.
However, in the professor’s assessment, during the processing, Congress could relax these deadlines and create specific rules for existing contracts, such as already negotiated advertising, sports sponsorships, the return of funds, and the platform shutdown process, while always respecting constitutional limits.
The MP’s Premises Could Be Challenged
Another crucial point raised by Quintiliano is the possibility of questioning the constitutional premises of the Provisional Measure itself. The Constitution clearly requires the presence of relevance and urgency for issuing such measures.
According to the professor, Congress has the duty to conduct this preliminary analysis even before proceeding to discuss the merits of the PM.
If the Plenary of either House concludes that these premises are not met, the provisional measure must be shelved
The specialist also highlights the existence of an exceptional mechanism: the possibility of the President of Congress returning a Provisional Measure to the Executive if a serious constitutional flaw is identified.
Although this is an uncommon recourse and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Federal Court on its limits is not entirely settled, there are historical precedents.
Quintiliano cites the returns of PMs nº 446/2008 and nº 669/2015, during the governments of Lula and Dilma Rousseff, as well as PMs nº 979/2020 and nº 1,068/2021, in the Bolsonaro administration, and the partial return of PM nº 1,227/2024, already under the current government.
The Supreme Federal Court in the Crosshairs of Controversy
In addition to the intense processing in Congress, the constitutionality of the Provisional Measure aimed at banning bets could also be taken to the judicial sphere.
For Quintiliano, any controversy could encompass both the constitutional requirements for issuing the PM and the drastic effects resulting from the abrupt termination of a betting market that had been formally regulated by the State itself.
The legal difference lies between deciding that a certain activity should not continue and determining that it must cease almost immediately, without sufficiently considering the contractual relationships established during the validity of a regulation created by the State itself
The professor believes that the Supreme Federal Court (STF) could be prompted to analyze the constitutionality of the measure. If the STF identifies any constitutional violation, it could even discuss the modulation of the decision’s effects, seeking a balance between public interest and legal certainty.
The possibility of judicialization is already on the sector’s radar: associations representing betting companies have already approached the STF to challenge the PM.
The Transition: A Gordian Knot for the Betting Sector
Even if Congress opts to uphold the decision to restrict or extinguish the betting market, the most relevant discussion will still revolve around how this transition will be implemented.
The betting sector has built an extensive and complex economic chain during the regulation period.
In 2025, a survey by Tunad revealed that investments in advertising by betting companies on open TV, cable TV, radio, and streaming exceeded R$ 1.4 billion.
In football, data released by UOL indicated that Serie A clubs generated approximately R$ 1.03 billion in commercial revenue from betting houses. Furthermore, Law No. 14,790/2023 provided for authorizations with a duration of up to five years, conditional on the payment of a fee that could reach R$ 30 million.
Quintiliano highlights that administrative instruments already existed for the review of authorizations. Portaria SPA/MF nº 827/2024, for example, provided for the possibility of administrative revocation under certain circumstances related to public interest.
Therefore, administrative instruments were available to modify this public policy. This does not mean that the government was legally obligated to adopt them. It does mean, however, that the existence of these alternatives can be part of the debate on the necessity of using the exceptional instrument of a provisional measure
Another point of attention is the scenario if the PM takes effect for a few weeks or months and is subsequently rejected or loses its validity. In this case, the Constitution stipulates that Congress shall regulate, by legislative decree, the legal relationships established during the provisional measure’s validity.
For the professor, this could create extremely complex situations for companies, contracts, sponsorships, and investments that were impacted during the PM‘s effective period.
The debate over the betting provisional measure does not end with its publication. In reality, it is just beginning
