Brazil's Sports Betting Bill Faces Another Setback Amidst Senate Absences

The much-anticipated Senate vote on Brazil’s sports betting bill, Bill 3,626/23, has encountered another delay, marking the second postponement in its passage. This latest setback was due to the nonattendance of certain senators participating in the United Nations climate conference (COP 28) in Dubai, as disclosed by Senator Angelo Coronel (PSD-BA).

The inclusion of online casino gaming in the bill has been a point of contention, with senators like Eduardo Girão and Carlos Portinho expressing concerns about the absence of a comprehensive regulatory framework. While the Chamber of Deputies approved the proposal to include iGaming in September, some senators advocate for more deliberation on the matter.

This legislation has faced over 100 revisions since its submission to the Senate. The Senate Economic Affairs Commission (CAE) proposed a 12% tax rate on sports betting operators and a 15% tax on player prizes, lower than the Ministry of Finance’s initial proposals. The CAE justifies these reduced rates as essential to attract consumers and businesses to Brazil’s regulated market.

The Betting Bill is a crucial part of Brazil’s 2024 budget, contributing through license fees and anticipated tax revenues. However, with the limited timeframe before Congress recesses in late December, skepticism arises about the bill’s approval this year, given extensive amendments proposed by senators in November.

The Betting Bill’s journey doesn’t end with the Senate. It must return to the House of Representatives for review before reaching President Lula’s desk for final approval. The potentially lengthy approval process poses a significant question mark due to ongoing tensions complicating its legislative path.

Growing impatience by bill proponents and industry stakeholders puts increasing pressure on Brazilian authorities to hasten the voting process. The updated legislation will happen, but the government’s haphazard approach is rapidly eroding public confidence in lawmakers’ ability to balance financial interests with customer safety.