NFL Urges Supreme Court To Rule on Prediction Markets
The National Football League (NFL) has urged the US Supreme Court to intervene in the legal battle over sports prediction markets, arguing that platforms such as Kalshi are offering sports betting products without the regulatory safeguards required of licensed sportsbooks.
In a court filing on October 8, the NFL backed New Jersey’s request for the Supreme Court to determine whether sports-related prediction contracts fall under federal financial regulation or state gambling laws.
The league argues that prediction-market operators are exploiting a gap between the two regulatory systems, allowing customers to wager on NFL games without the same restrictions imposed on conventional sports betting operators.
The scale of the industry has become a major concern for the NFL. According to its filing, contracts involving NFL games accounted for approximately $1.8 billion of the $3.3 billion traded across prediction markets on the opening Sunday of the 2026 season.
The league said the rapid growth of these products, combined with inconsistent regulatory oversight, presented risks to the integrity of professional sport.
“Absent the clarity that only this Court can provide, DCM operators will continue exploiting the gap between state and federal regulation, endangering consumers and the integrity of sports events across the country,” the NFL said.
At the centre of the dispute is whether sports prediction contracts qualify as financial derivatives, known as swaps, under the Commodity Exchange Act.
Kalshi and other federally registered prediction markets argue that their contracts are regulated exclusively by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), meaning state gambling laws cannot be applied to them.
New Jersey and several other states contend that contracts allowing customers to wager on sporting outcomes are effectively sports bets and should therefore be subject to state licensing, taxation and consumer protection requirements.
The NFL supports that position, arguing that financial swaps were traditionally designed to manage existing commercial risks rather than create new risks through gambling.
The league also outlined several shortcomings it believes exist in the current federal regulatory framework.
Unlike state-regulated sportsbooks, prediction markets can permit customers aged 18 to participate, rather than imposing the minimum age of 21 commonly required for legal sports betting.
The NFL has repeatedly called for that age restriction to be increased, alongside prohibitions on contracts involving outcomes that could be manipulated by individual players, coaches or officials.
Examples identified in its filing include whether a kicker misses a field goal, decisions made by referees, player injuries and events whose outcomes may be known to insiders before the public.
The league also raised concerns about prediction market operators’ ability to identify individuals possessing confidential information, including team employees and medical personnel.
It argues that effective monitoring requires cooperation with sporting organisations and access to lists of individuals prohibited from betting.
The NFL said the CFTC and prediction-market operators had failed to implement several protections despite repeated requests.
“Without adequate staff engaged in oversight and enforcement, even the best regulations cannot meaningfully ensure game integrity and consumer protection,” the league said.
The filing noted that the CFTC had 543 employees responsible for overseeing the country’s derivatives markets, compared with approximately 400 employees each at the gambling regulators in Nevada and Pennsylvania.
The NFL’s intervention follows conflicting rulings from three federal appeals courts.
The Third Circuit previously sided with Kalshi in its dispute with New Jersey, finding that federal commodities regulation pre-empted state gambling laws applying to its sports contracts.
However, the Sixth and Ninth Circuits have reached the opposite conclusion, ruling that sports prediction contracts do not qualify as swaps under federal law.
The conflicting decisions have increased pressure for the Supreme Court to resolve the issue.
Speaking to Reuters, an NFL spokesperson said the league wanted the court to settle the disagreement over regulatory authority.
“The league is joining with many voices to encourage the Court to take this opportunity, now, to resolve the disagreement in the lower courts about who should regulate prediction markets – the CFTC or the states,” the spokesperson said.
The CFTC rejected suggestions that it had failed to engage with the league, telling Reuters it had attempted to establish a formal information-sharing arrangement.
“It’s unfortunate the NFL declined to sign an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) with the CFTC which would’ve provided the league the ability to better discuss, cooperate, and exchange information with us to promote the integrity and resilience of prediction markets,” the regulator said.
Kalshi has also defended federal oversight, arguing that a nationwide regulatory framework provides greater consistency than requiring prediction markets to comply with different gambling laws in individual states.
The company has previously pointed to its partnerships with other major sporting organisations and maintained that its contracts operate within an established federal regulatory framework.
The NFL’s position is particularly significant because other major American sporting organisations, including Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League, have established commercial relationships with prediction-market operators.
The Supreme Court has not yet agreed to hear New Jersey’s appeal.
Kalshi has until November 9 to respond to the petition, with a decision on whether the case will be heard not expected before December.
A Supreme Court ruling could have major implications for the American gambling industry, determining whether sports prediction markets can continue operating nationally under federal oversight or must comply with the licensing and consumer protection requirements imposed on conventional sportsbooks.
