Flamengo reliant on betting firms? The sums don’t add up | OneFootball

There is an irresistible temptation in the debate over bets: to take a huge number, put it in front of the fans, and turn millions into a verdict.

At Flamengo, the calculation is more complicated.

Betano pays R$ 268.5 million per season for the master sponsorship spot on the shirt. It is a fortune. But turning that amount into proof that Flamengo is financially dependent on betting requires ignoring precisely what should guide the discussion: the numbers.

Flamengo’s 2025 financial statement reports gross operating revenue of R$ 2.089 billion. Of that total, R$ 1.571 billion came from recurring revenue, excluding player transfers.

That is where the narrative starts to lose strength.

Take Betano out of the equation. And, to make the exercise even harsher, imagine that no new sponsor appears to take over the most valuable spot on the shirt.

Even so, Flamengo would still have revenue close to R$ 1.82 billion.

That does not mean losing R$ 268.5 million is irrelevant. Far from it. It simply means that an important source of revenue is not necessarily an irreplaceable one.

And there is an irony in the math.

The spot that now belongs to Betano would still exist after it is gone. Flamengo would not lose the shirt. It would lose the contract. Those are different things.

If a new sponsor paid R$ 150 million, the difference would be R$ 118.5 million. If it reached R$ 200 million, it would drop to R$ 68.5 million.

That is still far too much money to dismiss.

But it no longer looks like the financial apocalypse some narratives suggest.

When the discussion abandons the numbers

Flamengo obviously needs to discuss the weight of betting companies in its commercial revenue. It also needs to consider regulatory, reputational, and market risks.

But from there to declaring financial dependence is quite a leap.

The financial statement shows a diversified structure, with broadcasting rights, operation of the Maracanã, sponsorships, licensing, prize money, and player trading. In 2025, commercial revenue grew by 23%.

The problem is that big numbers make for easy headlines.

“R$ 268.5 million from bets” is alarming.

“R$ 2.089 billion in revenue” requires a second reading.

And perhaps that second reading is precisely what is missing.

Bets can be opposed for social reasons. That is a legitimate discussion and does not need any dressing up.

What does not seem legitimate is turning a social issue into a financial argument without doing the full math.

Flamengo is not Betano.

Betano is one part — certainly an important one — of a much larger revenue machine.

If the company leaves tomorrow, there will be an impact. Flamengo will have to find another source to fill that space. It will have less money available. It will need to recalibrate something.

But saying the club would collapse because one sponsor disappeared is confusing a loss of revenue with structural dependence.

And Brazilian football loves that kind of confusion.

Because a ready-made narrative fits in a post.

The financial statement does not.

In the end, perhaps that is the most uncomfortable point: opposing bets does not require inventing a fragility that the numbers do not show.

Flamengo can be criticized for the contract. It can be pressed over the exposure. Its commercial strategy can be questioned.

All of that is part of the debate.

What is not fair is turning R$ 268.5 million into R$ 2 billion.

Because when passion takes the field, math is usually the first to be sent off.

(*) Wilson Pimentel is a journalist, radio host, businessman, and founding partner of Agência RTI Esporte.

This article was translated into English by Artificial Intelligence. You can read the original version in 🇧🇷 here.