Betting firms and clubs held 17 of the 26 seats at Fux's hearing, and the bettor was left outside

At 10 a.m. this Tuesday, November 3, the Supreme Federal Court (STF), Brazil's top court, opens the Second Panel's chamber to hear what Brazil thinks of the betting ban. Brazil, in this case, arrives in cleats. First speaker in line is Flamengo.

The public hearing was called by Justice Luiz Fux, rapporteur of the case in which the National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) asks to strike down Provisional Measure 1,394, issued on September 25. The measure took fixed-odds betting houses, sites and apps offline, and banned advertising. Fux did not suspend the measure. He preferred, first, to hear the interested parties.

The October 26 list

In the October 26 order, the interested parties numbered 26. Ten soccer clubs: Flamengo, Fluminense, Botafogo, Cruzeiro, São Paulo, Corinthians, Ponte Preta, Vitória, Guarani and Portuguesa. The CBF, the national soccer confederation. The betting houses' own organizations, the ANJL and the Brazilian Institute of Responsible Gaming (IBJR), plus other industry associations. The National Confederation of Commerce, the one for Industry, the Brazilian Association for Economic Freedom. And Abert, which brings together the radio and television broadcasters, the ones that air the matches with a betting-house sign on the pitch, on the jersey and at halftime.

By the count of the Attorney General's Office (AGU), 17 of the 26 guests were soccer clubs or betting representatives. On the other side of the table, the government, which issued the measure, and the Prosecutor General's Office (PGR).

The reason for so many clubs has a name in the accounting books. Betting sponsorships accounted for 7.9% of Série A clubs' revenue in 2025. According to Folha, cited by BNLData, the hearing would serve to discuss a deal among the government, betting companies and clubs. The solution making the rounds would keep sports betting, the kind that matters to soccer, and ban online casinos.

Who was not on the list

At the previous hearing on the same subject, in November 2024, the STF heard the Brazilian Psychiatric Association, the Alana Institute, which works for children, and Idec, a consumer defense group. None of the three was called this time. There was also nobody from the Health Ministry on the first list.

On October 30, eight consumer defense organizations signed a statement asking to speak, even if by video, and, failing that, a hearing just for those who lose money on bets. To remind the rapporteur why the consumer matters, they quoted the rapporteur himself. In a ruling on betting, Fux wrote that people spend on bets the money meant for consumption and for their subsistence minimum. To secure a seat in 2026, the sentence was not enough.

The AGU complains, the list grows

The AGU asked the justice to broaden the adversarial debate, because the lineup was predominantly sports organizations and betting operators. On Sunday, November 1, Fux granted part of the request. In came the Health and Justice ministries, the Brazilian Supermarket Association, the Paralympic Committee, the National Federation of Professional Soccer Athletes and one more club, Grêmio. The list reached 34.

The supermarkets got in because the money that goes to betting stops going to the shopping cart. The consumer organizations, which have been saying exactly that for years, stayed out. As of press time, their requests had no public answer. Abert remains on the list. Each guest will have ten minutes.

Outside

While the list was being drawn up, a campaign began collecting signatures at the courthouse door, online. The Bets Nunca Mais petition, from the Instituto Conhecimento Liberta, asks for three things: that the ban remain in force, that betting sponsorship of clubs, broadcasts and influencers end, and that there be public care for those who became addicted and for indebted families. On Monday night, November 2, the site's counter stood at 140,012 signatures.

That is 140,000 people without ten minutes at the microphone. Enough to fill the Maracanã almost twice. Flamengo, which speaks at 10:10 a.m., knows a full house well.

The hearing decides nothing: it serves for the rapporteur to gather arguments before voting. The measure remains in force, and Congress has until the end of the constitutional deadline to vote on it. The argument of someone who lost the month's paycheck on an app will reach the Supreme Court the way it has so far: in writing, from outside, with a name and taxpayer ID number (CPF).