Almost a year after the sanction of the law that regulated sports betting in Brazil, one of the 'fathers' of the process sees that a topic was left out of the regulation: bets for beneficiaries of social programs. In an exclusive interview with Exame, José Francisco Manssur, former special secretary of the Ministry of Finance, stated that the regulation will allow data crossing. Thus, it would be possible to assess whether those receiving Bolsa Família or the Continuous Cash Benefit (BPC) are betting and limit their access to bets.
“This is an important discussion. We will have a lot of information about the bettors, and it may be necessary to discuss whether beneficiaries of social programs, such as Bolsa Família or the BPC, should have access to the betting market", says José Francisco Manssur, former special secretary at the Ministry of Finance.
"It is not difficult to cross the data of these people, and it may be the case to create a limitation to protect these people, given their socioeconomic profile. This is an issue that can be improved in the future”.
A lawyer since 1998, Manssur has always worked in the area of sports law. He has worked with clubs, companies, and sports entities. In 2015, he proposed to Senator Rodrigo Pacheco the creation of the Football Anonymous Society (SAF) law.
His close relationship with Gabriel Galípolo, former executive secretary of the Treasury and appointed to assume the presidency of the Central Bank, was decisive in reaching the position of advisor to the Executive Secretariat of the Ministry of Finance. There, he led the drafting of the betting regulation and articulated with Congress for the project to be approved.
At the beginning of this year, Manssur left the position because he understood that "he had fulfilled his mission" and to pacify political disputes over the control of sports betting authorizations. Today, the lawyer is a partner at CSMV Lawyers.
In addition to suggesting improvements to the sector, the former Secretary of the Treasury talks about the challenges of regulation, how he sees the sector in 2025, and the need to combat gambling addiction.
How did the need to regulate betting arise?
Betting was legalized in 2018, but the 2018 law itself mandated regulation within two years, extended by another two. This regulatory gap caused a series of problems. One of the issues that caught the government's attention during the transition was the fact that, without regulation, there was no way to tax. So, you imagine all economic segments being taxed, food, industry, and this segment, not.
We didn't even have access to much data, because there was no regulation, there was no information. But we heard numbers that said this segment moved R$150 million and did not pay R$1 in taxes. And we found out it was much more than that. Without regulation, you don't control advertising, you don't fight money laundering, you don't bring effective policies to combat addiction, which is something very important and was growing a lot. So, I spent a year and a half at the Ministry of Finance.
And how was this process within the Ministry?
I had almost 500 meetings with all segments. This was very intense in the first half of 2023. I also studied cases from other countries, because the Ministry of Finance practically had nothing on the subject. There was no history, study, because the previous government pretended this was a "non-issue". In the second half, in addition to continuing to listen to the market, I also dialogued a lot with Congress.
How do you see the future of this regulated market? How many sites should there be in Brazil next year?
We had 113 requests for authorization. If each of these requests advances and is approved, each one can have three flags, that is, almost 300 or 400 betting sites in Brazil. When we were at the Treasury, we mapped almost 1,000 domains that were offering bets in Brazil. With regulation, the number could double.
Do you see room for mergers and acquisitions in this market?
Now, until the authorizations come out, the market will internally adjust. After that, there will be a new movement in the market, with mergers and acquisitions. It is possible that the number of 113 may decrease a bit due to these mergers, but we also already feel that new companies are interested in entering the market and may make new requests for authorization.
The market sees that the regulation was restrictive. Do you agree?
The regulation is restrictive because it has to be. We need to ensure that companies have the financial condition to secure the prizes and that they are constituted in Brazil. When they are authorized, they will have to pay a grant of R$ 30 million.
About the issue of games like tigrinho and the airplane, you mentioned that the problem is not the game itself, but the way it is sold. Could you explain better?
If you make fraudulent advertising for these games and inform people that, by playing tigrinho or the airplane, they will get rich, you are committing a harm because of the advertising. I always like to give a somewhat controversial, but interesting example. If I take an influencer and put him saying: “I'm drinking only Coca-Cola all day and look how strong I am, how I lost weight and got healthy”, he will influence millions of people to do this so-called "Coca-Cola diet", which will do a lot of harm to them.
So it's a question of advertising?
Yes. The problem is not tigrinho or the airplane, the problem is the message. It's the way it's sold. What we saw a lot and will fight with regulation are real frauds. People programmed their cell phones to make videos showing: “In 10 minutes, I won R$ 25,000”. This was a fraud, a misleading advertisement, which must be combated. This can be done in relation to tigrinho, the airplane, sports betting, or even in relation to other situations, like someone saying they opened a page on Instagram and in 10 minutes won R$ 25,000.
And regarding the fight against gambling addiction, how can regulation help?
The central point of the regulation is responsible gaming. We prohibit the use of credit cards in betting, which is essential, as a compulsive person could bet unlimitedly. Only betting with available balance in the account is allowed, which limits the risk.
We also prohibit entry bonuses, which are widely used to attract new bettors, something that can encourage addiction. We have created rules for operators to offer policies to combat addiction and be responsible for how they advertise betting, limiting misleading advertisements that promise easy enrichment.
Do you think the government has done enough to combat addiction or is there more to be done?
We had four meetings with the Ministry of Health, and we proposed the creation of a working group to address the issue of gambling addiction. It is important that the Ministry of Health, which has the technical capacity, leads this dialogue with health professionals.
It is not the role of the Ministry of Finance to lead this conversation, but we have been working to ensure that the issue is addressed appropriately. I hope this working group is being created now. In addition, part of the tax revenue from betting goes to the Ministry of Health, which can use this value to implement public policies and treat gambling addiction.
And about the beneficiaries of social programs, such as Bolsa Família, do you see any need to restrict their access to betting?
I believe this is an important discussion. We will have a lot of information about the bettors, and it may be necessary to discuss whether beneficiaries of social programs, such as Bolsa Família or the BPC, should have access to the betting market. It is not difficult to cross the data of these people, and it may be the case to create a limitation to protect these people, given their socioeconomic profile. This is an issue that can be improved in the future.
Regarding the judicialization of the sector, do you believe there will be many challenges?
I believe so. The market is very competitive, and it is natural that there are judicial challenges about the authorizations granted. This is part of the democratic process. The Judiciary will establish precedents and create greater legal security for the sector. This is positive and part of the maturation of the market. Of course, some actions may be reckless, but the judiciary has mechanisms to deal with this.
And what was the reason for your departure from the Ministry?
On February 23, I spoke with the minister about my departure. I asked to leave because I felt that my work was complete, that the partnerships were very well underway, and I thought it was time to return to the market. First, I had to comply with the quarantine, so I consulted the Ethics Commission about this. I was released in May, and on June 5 I started working at CSMV Lawyers, which is a very relevant office in the area of sports law.
Your departure was just because you thought your work was completed?
Yes, I thought my work was completed. Even with the ordinances still in progress, the market will only be regulated effectively next year. Of course, I am curious to see how it will work, but there are some important aspects to consider. First, there was a discussion with the Ministry of Sports about who would give the authorizations. The Ministry of Sports was claiming this, and there was the defense of the president of the Chamber in this process.
Was it a political issue?
According to the minister and the executive secretary, this issue was somewhat hindering the minister's relationship with the Chamber. I told the minister that I saw no legal basis for the Ministry of Sports to give the authorizations, because the law expressly said it was the Ministry of Finance. But if this discussion was really creating a problem, maybe changing the person could help resolve the issue, and that's what happened. With my departure, the discussion evolved and reached a consensus.
Source: Exame
