Super Bowl LX and Prediction Markets

Breadth of events: from the score to the halftime outfit

In the regulated US market, Super Bowl betting at licensed sportsbooks is still centred on spreads, moneylines, totals and a list of props vetted by state regulators.

Prediction platforms, by contrast, offered contracts not only on the winner and MVP but also on entertainment‑style outcomes, such as specific performers or whether Bad Bunny would wear a dress on stage, and on some broader news‑related events tied to game day.

Technically, these are binary event contracts whose payoff depends on whether an outcome occurs. On venues that treat them as financial products, they are supervised at federal level by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which regulates derivatives and certain event‑based contracts, rather than by state gambling regulators.

In practice, they extend the range of tradable moments beyond what most sportsbook prop catalogues currently include, which can be attractive for highly engaged viewers but also raises questions for regulators about how far event‑based speculation should reach into celebrity and news coverage.

Always‑on engagement: turning a broadcast into a betting surface

By listing dozens of Super Bowl‑adjacent markets, prediction platforms enable an always‑on style of engagement in which every drive, commercial and pop‑culture moment can prompt trades.

The Economist’s “All in: America bets on prediction markets” episode describes how legalisation has turned sports betting into a widely adopted habit in the US, and then uses prediction markets to illustrate how that habit now extends to politics and other non‑sport events.

From a behavioural perspective, this can look less like placing a few pre‑game wagers and more like managing positions across a live show. Traditional sportsbook products already carry well‑documented addiction risks, which is why they sit inside responsible‑gambling and licensing regimes.

The Economist’s coverage, and other public‑health commentary, suggests that prediction markets may add to existing gambling risks by extending betting‑like behaviour into more moments and more types of events, and also reach a new audience.

For regulators and operator compliance teams, the practical question is how this denser grid of , event‑driven contracts should be reflected in future safeguards, given the concerns about harm that already apply to traditional sportsbook products.

Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, dressed for Super Bowl LX with Patriots and Seahawks branding, 4 February 2026.. Editorial image Sipa USA / Alamy

Regulatory discomfort: when “event contracts” walk like sports betting

Kalshi and Polymarket maintain that their Super Bowl markets are not “sports betting” but federally regulated event contracts, and that this places them under commodities law rather than state gambling rules. Several states take the opposite view. Regulators and courts in, for example, Nevada, Massachusetts and Tennessee have treated sports‑linked prediction markets as unlicensed gambling, ordering geofencing, refunds or delistings for certain sports contracts on the basis that they closely resemble sports wagering products.
Michael Selig’s arrival at the CFTC has shifted the federal tone. In a January statement titled “America’s Financial Markets are ready for a Golden Age”, he said:

Commentary on Selig’s early agenda notes that the CFTC has moved to withdraw a proposed ban on sports and election event contracts and is expected to pursue more tailored rules instead, with prediction markets often cited as one area that could be clarified.

For Super Bowl‑linked activity, this leaves risk sitting across two frameworks. From a customer’s point of view, an over/under contract on total points at an event‑contract venue can look very similar to a total at a licensed Sportsbook. Legally, however, one product is treated as gambling supervised by state gaming commissions and tied to responsible‑gambling requirements; the other is treated as a derivative overseen at federal level with a focus on market‑abuse and conduct rules.

How that tension is resolved is now a central question in ongoing court cases over whether some event‑contract offerings effectively function as national Sportsbooks.

Media set up for the Super Bowl LX pregame Apple Music Halftime Show press conference at the Moscone West media center in San Francisco, 5 February 2026. Editorial image Sipa USA / Alamy

Brand, public‑health and product boundaries

The possibility to bet on whether Bad Bunny would wear a dress during the Super Bowl LX Apple Music Halftime Show points to a broader issue: once moments like outfits, cameos and other pop‑culture details in the Super Bowl broadcast can be listed as event contracts.

In its podcast on prediction markets, The Economist highlights public‑health concerns about the broader expansion of legal sports betting and prediction products, including worries about addiction and social costs.

For brands, the implications are partly commercial and partly reputational. A regulated sportsbook that sticks to league‑approved markets can point to a clear, agreed‑upon boundary around what it will monetize.

Platforms that list contracts on more sensitive subjects—such as aspects of celebrities’ appearances or legal and political outcomes—during a major broadcast face a higher likelihood of criticism from regulators, media and advocacy groups, regardless of whether they operate under gambling or derivatives rules.

Any operator considering partnerships or cross‑promotion with such products will need to weigh those perceptions alongside the potential upside.

Mainstream media: partnerships

Television networks and news outlets are starting to incorporate prediction‑market data into their own products, making these markets visible well beyond specialist trading communities. In December 2025, CNN named Kalshi its “official prediction markets partner”, with Kalshi’s probabilities to be used in election and economic coverage across CNN’s TV, digital and social channels. Shortly afterwards, CNBC announced a multi‑year partnership to integrate Kalshi data into its on‑air graphics and online products, showing selected event‑contract prices alongside other indicators in business and politics segments.

Taken together, these agreements position Kalshi’s prices as one of several signals that US broadcasters can use to describe how traders view political or macro‑economic risk.

For iGaming professionals, these partnerships help shift perceptions of prediction markets. They are no longer just another app competing for attention; they are becoming part of how mainstream audiences view probability and risk in politics, economics, and major sports events.

One recent analysis, based on Juice Reel app data, estimates that prediction markets capture about 5% of legal US sportsbook handle—around 8 billion dollars annualised at current run‑rates—though the author stresses this is an early, directional estimate rather than a settled view.

As visibility grows, so does the likelihood that regulators and integrity firms will treat prediction prices as signals that shape public narratives and betting turnover.

Super Bowl LX is where these strands intersect: a single game that supports traditional, state‑licensed betting products and a second, federally supervised, media‑amplified layer of event contracts that turn much of what happens on‑screen into something that can be traded.

Further Reading & Key Sources