China’s Experience Enters Brazil’s Betting Restrictions Debate

Brazil.- 22 September 2026 | www.zonadeazar.com Brazil‘s debate over possible new restrictions on online betting has increasingly drawn on China’s experience, where gambling remains broadly prohibited but substantial illegal and cross-border activity has continued.

The Chinese case cannot establish what would happen in Brazil if legal supply were reduced. It does, however, raise a central policy question: what happens to existing gambling demand when certain products are no longer available through regulated channels?

Gambling Prohibited Since 1949

Gambling has been prohibited in mainland China since 1949, with state-authorised lotteries representing the principal exception.

The country operates two major official systems:

• Sports Lottery.
• Welfare Lottery.

Gambling outside those channels is subject to extensive restrictions.

Tougher Measures Against Offshore Gambling

China has also strengthened legislation targeting cross-border gambling.

In 2020, authorities introduced tougher provisions against organising activities designed to attract Chinese citizens to gamble overseas.

The policy seeks to limit both illegal domestic supply and financial flows towards foreign operators.

Official Lotteries Generated CNY627.97 Billion

China’s official lotteries recorded approximately CNY627.97 billion in sales during 2025.

Of that total:

• CNY419.39 billion came from the Sports Lottery.
• CNY208.58 billion came from the Welfare Lottery.

The figures illustrate the scale of gambling activity permitted through the state system.

CNY1 Trillion Offshore Estimate

In 2020, a senior official at China’s Ministry of Public Security estimated that approximately CNY1 trillion per year was leaving the country in funds linked to overseas gambling.

At exchange rates at the time, that was equivalent to roughly USD145 billion.

Figures Are Not Directly Comparable

The official lottery data and offshore-gambling estimate relate to different years and different methodologies.

They should therefore not be treated as directly comparable statistics.

Their value is primarily in illustrating the potential scale of legal and illegal activity in a very large market.

Operators Outside China

Part of the gambling supply targeting Chinese customers shifted to other Asian jurisdictions.

Networks and platforms have operated from markets including:

• The Philippines.
• Cambodia.
• Myanmar.
• Laos.

Some continued targeting Chinese users from outside the country’s borders.

Alternative Payment Channels

Illegal activity has also adapted to tighter financial controls.

Mechanisms identified in investigations include:

• Cryptocurrency.
• Third-party accounts.
• Informal payment systems.
• Underground financial networks.

These structures can make enforcement through conventional banking channels more difficult.

Large-Scale Philippine Operation

One investigation referenced in the analysis identified a Philippine operation that allegedly processed around CNY725.5 billion, or approximately USD100.8 billion.

It was reported to involve more than 50,000 Chinese agents and close to one million registered betting accounts.

Those figures relate to a particular investigated operation and should not be extrapolated to the wider market.

Player Protection

One major distinction between regulated and illegal markets concerns consumer safeguards.

Unlicensed platforms may operate without:

• Deposit limits.
• Self-exclusion.
• Effective age verification.
• Identity controls.
• Formal complaint procedures.
• Regulatory supervision.

Players can therefore have fewer remedies when disputes or abusive practices occur.

Wider Criminal Risks

International investigations have linked some illegal gambling networks in South-East Asia to broader criminal activity.

Examples include:

• Money laundering.
• Online fraud.
• Underground banking.
• Digital scams.
• Forced labour.

This does not mean prohibition automatically causes such criminal activity. It shows that some illegal operators may become connected to wider criminal organisations.

73,000 Enforcement Cases

The analysis cites approximately 73,000 gambling-related enforcement cases in China during 2024.

More than 4,500 websites were also reportedly shut down.

Despite that enforcement activity, new sites and mechanisms continued to emerge.

Payments and Technology Matter

The experience highlights a wider enforcement issue: blocking a website does not necessarily eliminate an illegal operation.

International bodies have emphasised the importance of also targeting:

• Payments.
• Advertising.
• Technology suppliers.
• Infrastructure.
• Affiliate networks.
• Financial mechanisms.

Brazil‘s Open Debate

The Chinese comparison enters the Brazilian debate as the federal government considers possible further restrictions on the regulated betting sector.

Authorities have linked the issue to concerns including:

• Household debt.
• Problem gambling.
• Social protection.
• Public health.

Specific policy measures remain subject to regulatory and legislative decisions.

Possible Online Casino Restrictions

One option being discussed is restricting or prohibiting certain online casino products.

Until a final legal text is published, however, the exact scope of any measure remains uncertain.

Football Clubs and Federations Respond

Brazilian clubs and sports bodies have defended continuation of the regulated market.

One of their arguments is that reducing legal supply could redirect players towards illegal operators.

That is an industry position and forms part of an ongoing policy debate.

Revenue for Sport

Sports organisations also argue that licensed betting sponsorship has become an important source of revenue for:

• Clubs.
• Competitions.
• Lower divisions.
• Sports bodies.
• Lower-profile properties.

Some of the same organisations also acknowledge the need for stronger prevention and responsible-gambling measures.

Two Separate Policy Challenges

Brazil therefore faces two related but distinct problems.

The first involves:

• Reducing harm.
• Addressing addiction.
• Protecting vulnerable consumers.

The second involves:

• Maintaining channelisation towards licensed operators.
• Limiting illegal-market growth.
• Controlling unauthorised payments and advertising.

China Is Not Brazil

The two countries differ substantially.

They have different:

• Political systems.
• Legal frameworks.
• Financial structures.
• Regulatory models.
• Gambling histories.

China’s experience therefore cannot be treated as a direct forecast for Brazil.

A Question About Persistent Demand

The narrower lesson is that eliminating legal supply does not necessarily eliminate underlying demand.

Where demand persists, policy effectiveness depends heavily on the state’s ability to control alternative channels.

Industry Context

Brazil has operated a federally regulated fixed-odds betting market since 2025.

Since then, policy debate has moved from market creation towards issues including:

• Enforcement.
• Advertising.
• Player protection.
• Illegal operators.
• Payments.
• Social responsibility.

Discussion of further restrictions represents another stage in that process.

Next Steps and Impact

Brazil‘s policy debate will need to address not only which products might be restricted but also how any displaced demand would be managed.

China offers evidence that illegal gambling can persist even under very restrictive frameworks.

For Brazil, the central challenge will be balancing consumer protection, harm reduction and effective enforcement without assuming that eliminating legal supply automatically eliminates gambling demand.

Editó: @fonta