Virtual overlays replace Bwin advertising for Brazilian viewers as Sportingbet reviews its CONMEBOL deal.
The South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL) has changed how betting operators’ brands appear in Brazilian broadcasts of the Copa Libertadores and Copa Sudamericana after Brazil banned fixed-odds betting.
The ban, which also affects the sponsorship deals of Brazilian clubs, conflicts with CONMEBOL’s international commercial agreements with betting operators.
CONMEBOL uses technology to show different advertising in Brazil from that broadcast in other countries, according to Máquina do Esporte. Betting brands on the shirts of foreign clubs playing in Brazil remain a question for how the new rules apply.
Provisional Measure (MP) No. 1,394/2026, signed by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva on September 25, prohibited the operation and advertising of fixed-odds betting in the national territory. Article 16 also forbids marketing and sponsorship actions directed at the Brazilian public, requiring the removal of advertising materials within ten days of the publication of the regulation.
How CONMEBOL uses technology to maintain international contracts
Since 2023, CONMEBOL has maintained a commercial partnership with Entain, the company responsible for the Sportingbet and Bwin brands. The agreements cover different markets: while Sportingbet focused on Brazil, Bwin concentrates its promotional activities in Spanish-speaking countries.
To meet Brazilian restrictions without compromising Bwin’s exposure in other markets, Conmebol uses a virtual overlay technology, which allows for the digital replacement of LED panel advertisements depending on the country where the broadcast is being shown.
The mechanism was used in Vasco da Gama’s 1-0 victory over Boca Juniors on Tuesday, the 13th, in the Copa Sudamericana. While viewers in other countries saw Bwin advertising, the Brazilian broadcasts on ESPN and SBT displayed institutional messages and advertisements from other sponsors, such as Coca-Cola, Amstel, and Mercado Livre.
The solution adopted by CONMEBOL preserves some of the commercial deliverables stipulated in the international contracts. However, it does not necessarily resolve the situation for Sportingbet, whose partnership with CONMEBOL was focused on the Brazilian market.
According to Máquina do Esporte, Sportingbet is evaluating the next steps in its contract with the organization in light of the ban. CONMEBOL also has an institutional agreement with Betano, from the Kaizen Gaming group, valid until 2028. This partnership, however, is mainly related to women’s national team competitions and does not provide direct exposure in continental club tournaments.
Sponsorships by foreign clubs raise legal questions
Although CONMEBOL has removed advertising from betting operators from Brazilian broadcasts, the presence of these brands on the uniforms of foreign teams represents another challenge.
Boca Juniors, for example, retains Betsson as its main sponsor. The brand continued to appear on the Argentine club’s jersey during the match against Vasco, despite the advertising restrictions in place in Brazil.
The situation involves an important legal point. The contract between Boca Juniors and Betsson was signed in Argentina, where the company operates legally. In principle, Brazilian law does not automatically terminate commercial agreements between foreign companies and clubs.
However, Provisional Measure No. 1,394/2026 establishes restrictions on the advertising of betting brands in Brazilian territory, which opens the door to different interpretations regarding the exposure of international sponsors in matches held or broadcast in the country.
Article 16 of the provisional measure prohibits content that promotes or advertises fixed-odds betting aimed at the Brazilian public. Therefore, the discussion revolves around determining whether the presence of a brand on the uniform of a foreign team constitutes advertising subject to the prohibition or simply the fulfillment of a commercial contract entered into abroad.
To date, there is no definitive interpretation from Brazilian authorities regarding this specific situation.
