ANJL Challenges Romeu Zema Over Betting Claims

Brazil.- 16 September 2026 | www.zonadeazar.com Brazil‘s National Association of Games and Lotteries, ANJL, has sent an extrajudicial notice to Romeu Zema, the Novo party’s presidential candidate, over public statements about sports betting and regulated gaming that the organisation says are false or misleading.

ANJL is demanding a public correction and has warned that it may pursue legal action for alleged moral and financial damages affecting companies operating legally within Brazil‘s regulated market.

Betting Becomes a Campaign Issue

Zema has intensified his criticism of online betting during his presidential campaign.

He has appeared publicly wearing a shirt carrying the message “chega de bets”, or “enough of betting”, and has said that if elected he intends to prohibit online betting through a provisional measure.

He has promised to act on the issue from his first day in office.

ANJL Disputes Zema’s Description of the Market

The association argues that statements made through interviews, events, official communications and social media do not accurately represent Brazil‘s regulated betting industry.

ANJL says that treating licensed and illegal operators as if they were the same can create misinformation among consumers, policymakers and public authorities.

Public Correction Requested

The extrajudicial notice calls on Zema to correct the disputed information publicly.

ANJL argues that the statements can damage the reputation of businesses that have obtained federal authorisation and comply with Brazilian tax and regulatory requirements.

Plínio Lemos Jorge Calls for Evidence-Based Debate

ANJL President Plínio Lemos Jorge has argued that discussions surrounding the sector should rely on verified facts and technical evidence.

The organisation rejects what it sees as broad claims that fail to distinguish between authorised operators and illegal betting platforms.

85 Authorised Companies

Brazil currently has 85 companies authorised to operate within its federal fixed-odds betting regime.

Licensed companies are subject to regulatory approval, taxation, compliance requirements, advertising standards and player-protection rules.

Tax Contributions

ANJL has also highlighted the tax contribution made by the legal market.

According to figures presented by the association, authorised operators generated:

  • R$9.95 billion in taxes during 2025.
  • R$7.28 billion during the first half of 2026.

The organisation uses those figures to distinguish the regulated market from unauthorised operators.

Social Allocation of Betting Revenue

Brazil‘s framework also allocates part of regulated betting revenue to public-interest areas.

According to ANJL, 13% of regulated-sector revenue is directed towards areas including:

  • Sport.
  • Health.
  • Public security.
  • Education.

The association cites these allocations as part of the case for preserving a supervised legal market.

1.2 Million Self-Exclusions

Player-protection mechanisms also form part of the regulated framework.

Approximately 1.2 million voluntary self-exclusions have been registered.

The mechanism allows consumers to block their own access to authorised betting platforms as a harm-prevention measure.

Illegal Betting Remains a Major Challenge

ANJL argues that many problems attributed broadly to betting should also be assessed in the context of the offshore market.

Brazilian authorities have already blocked more than 60,000 illegal gambling websites.

However, estimates suggest that as much as R$40 billion per year may still circulate outside the regulated system.

Legal and Illegal Markets

For the association, this distinction is fundamental.

Licensed companies must comply with requirements covering:

  • KYC.
  • Responsible gambling.
  • Advertising.
  • Taxation.
  • Anti-money laundering.
  • Integrity.
  • Consumer protection.

Illegal platforms operate outside those controls.

Political Debate Intensifies

Betting has become an increasingly prominent subject in Brazilian politics.

Concerns range from household debt and mental health to advertising, underage access and wider economic effects.

Political proposals now extend from tighter restrictions to a complete prohibition on online betting.

Industry Seeks a Place in Policy Discussions

ANJL has repeatedly argued that regulated operators should participate in discussions concerning future changes to the framework.

Its position is that public policy should clearly distinguish between authorised businesses and illegal supply.

Regulatory Debate Meets Election Campaign

The issue is also gaining electoral significance.

Zema’s proposed betting prohibition could become one of the gambling-related themes of the presidential campaign.

At the same time, Brazil‘s federal authorities are considering additional measures around consumer protection and illegal-market enforcement.

Industry Context

Brazil is in the consolidation phase of its regulated betting market.

Following the creation of a federal licensing system, attention has shifted towards supervision, responsible gambling, advertising, financial controls and reducing illegal supply.

The disagreement between ANJL and Zema reflects a broader policy question: whether betting-related social concerns should result in further restrictions on the legal sector or stronger enforcement against unauthorised operators.

Next Steps and Impact

ANJL is now seeking a public correction from Romeu Zema.

If the statements identified in its notice are not amended, the association has warned that it may pursue judicial measures seeking compensation for moral and financial damages.

The dispute raises the profile of betting regulation within Brazil‘s presidential campaign and places the regulated sector directly into an increasingly political debate about its future.

With 85 authorised companies, billions of reais in tax revenue and a significant illegal market still operating outside the system, the distinction between licensed and offshore operators is likely to remain one of the industry’s central arguments against proposals for prohibition or additional restrictions.

Editó: @fonta

Compartir: