NFL Urges Supreme Court to Classify Prediction Markets as Gambling

The National Football League (NFL) has filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, advocating for the state-level regulation of prediction markets, which it characterizes as a form of gambling. This intervention supports New Jersey regulators in a legal dispute concerning Kalshi, a prediction market platform.

What Happened

The NFL has formally requested the Supreme Court to rule on whether states should retain authority over sports betting, asserting that sports prediction contracts function as gambling, not financial swaps regulated by the federal government (CNBC). This stance supports New Jersey regulators in their ongoing legal challenge against Kalshi, a prediction market operator. The league informed CNBC that on the initial Sunday of the current season, football-related prediction market trading accounted for $1.8 billion, representing over half of the total volume for that day.

The NFL clarifies it does not oppose prediction markets in principle but believes that due to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) resource limitations, state-level regulation is more appropriate (CNBC). The league has expressed concerns regarding the potential for manipulation in certain types of contracts, such as those involving field goals or fumbles, and wagers tied to injuries or officiating, where insiders might possess advance knowledge. The NFL also advocates for a minimum age of 21 for participants, aligning with most state mandates for sports betting, noting that Kalshi permits users as young as 18 (CNBC).

Key Details

• The NFL argues prediction market contracts are gambling, not financial swaps, advocating for state regulation (CNBC).
• On the first Sunday of the season, football prediction markets generated $1.8 billion in trading, exceeding 50% of the total volume (CNBC).
• The NFL seeks to ban categories of bets susceptible to manipulation and establish a minimum age of 21 for participants, citing current CFTC and prediction market company inaction (CNBC).

Why It Matters

The NFL’s intervention highlights a regulatory conflict regarding prediction markets, specifically whether they fall under state gambling laws or federal financial regulations. The league maintains a strong stance on maintaining game integrity, as evidenced by its continued advertising ban on prediction platforms (CNBC). Commissioner Roger Goodell emphasized the league’s preference for establishing robust protections before considering engagement with these markets, stating, “We don’t feel like we have to be the first in this. We feel like we’re going to be right, and the best thing to do is be patient” (CNBC). This position contrasts with other major sports organizations; for instance, the NHL, MLB, Major League Soccer, and UFC have formed partnerships with prediction market platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket, while the NFL, NBA, and PGA have not (CNBC).

Federal appeals courts have issued divergent rulings on whether states can enforce their gambling regulations over federal oversight by the CFTC (CNBC). The NFL’s brief asserts that regulating gambling is a traditional power of the states, questioning the constitutional basis for Congress to override these state powers for intrastate gambling regulation (CNBC).

What’s Next

The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to hear the case will determine the next steps in clarifying the regulatory landscape for prediction markets, potentially impacting their classification and oversight at state or federal levels.

Originally reported by CNBC·Published 8 Oct 2026, 10:00