The inclusion of so-called “fantasy games” in the legal framework of the electronic games industry divided the opinion of the speakers who participated yesterday in a thematic debate session in the Brazilian Senate on Bill (PL) 2796/2021. Given the divergence among experts, senators defended the postponement of the vote on the matter, which is being processed urgently and is ready for deliberation in the Plenary of the Chamber.
Read also: A Dream Competition: Challenging the Possible in Fantasy Leagues
The bill defines fantasy games as disputes in a virtual environment based on the performance of real athletes. Participants in this modality “climb” imaginary teams, composed of characters that simulate the statistical performance of real athletes in a professional sport, such as football, volleyball, or basketball.
The text from the Chamber of Deputies includes electronic games under the same tax rules as computer equipment. As a result, investments in game development or production are now considered an application in research, development, and innovation (RDI). The Information Technology Law (Law 8248 of 1991) grants financial credit on RDI expenses to deduct federal taxes.
During the thematic debate session, some of the debaters defended the inclusion of fantasy games in PL 2796/2021. For the other segment of experts, the measure could open a loophole in the bill for more lenient taxation of gambling.
For Vilson Antonio Romero, president of the National Association of Federal Revenue Tax Auditors (Anfip), PL 2796/2021 should be broken down. He suggests that the provisions related to fantasy games be analyzed in an autonomous proposal, submitted for analysis by the Senate committees.
Read also: A Dream Competition: Challenging the Possible in Fantasy Leagues
“From the beginning, everything happened in a hurry in the Chamber of Deputies. The rapporteur rejected an amendment from the Plenary that covers fantasy games. I think it’s a ‘jabuti’ in the legal framework of electronic games. Fantasy games that are linked to a real match, to the lineup of a football player, have to be completely disconnected. They should be treated the same as the regulation of fixed-odds betting taxation. They should be brought closer to fixed-odds betting games than to electronic games,” explained Romero.
Lynn Gama Alves, a professor at the Federal University of Bahia and a specialist in the relationship between gaming and education, reinforces the criticism. She points out a series of “weaknesses” in the bill. Among them, the inclusion of fantasy games in the subject matter.
“There was an inappropriate combination of two distinct categories: video games and fantasy sports. Fantasy sports are limited to a type of game that involves betting, rewards, competitions, and economic prizes, considering the performance of athletes in sports events. This characterization may indicate the opening of loopholes for betting platforms to appropriate what is said in the framework, ‘justifying’ the use of some types of games that can be addictive. Different objects require separate benchmarks that take into account their specificities. Why isn’t there a bill of its own?” Alves questioned.
Oksandro Gonçalves, president of the Brazilian Association of Law and Economics, calls PL 2796/2021 a general confusion: “It is not exactly a milestone. The object is unclear, the definitions are not properly formulated, and there is widespread confusion regarding several aspects. If the intention is to provide legal certainty, these definitions must be precise. It is a collection of loose articles that need to be classified. This is only possible through extensive discussion and not through urgent requests.”
Read also: California: Attorney General Considers Fantasy Sports Illegal Gambling
