NFL Asks Supreme Court to Settle Prediction Market Turf War

The NFL generated $1.8 billion in trading volume on prediction markets on the first Sunday of this season alone — more than half of the $3.3 billion total across all platforms — and the league is now urging the Supreme Court to decide who regulates it.

The league filed a brief Thursday supporting New Jersey's request for a high court ruling on the governing authority for prediction markets, where users trade — or wager — on the outcome of future events. The NFL argues states, not the federal government, are better positioned to oversee sports-related contracts "given the current landscape."

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission claims exclusive jurisdiction over the markets. States counter that the typically yes-or-no contracts amount to gambling and fall under their purview.

"Absent the clarity that only this Court can provide, (prediction market) operators will continue exploiting the gap between state and federal regulation, endangering consumers and the integrity of sports events across the country," NFL lawyers wrote in the brief.

Why is the NFL pressing the court now?

The scale of sports-linked trading is the driving force. According to the league's brief, NFL-connected contracts accounted for $1.8 billion of the $3.3 billion traded on the first Sunday of the season.

"Any delay from the Court will result in increasing consumer harm and risk to game integrity," the NFL wrote.

The league is also questioning whether the CFTC can actually police the sector. Nevada and Pennsylvania each employ hundreds of people overseeing their gambling industries, the NFL filing notes, while the CFTC has 543 employees responsible for a broad range of derivatives beyond event contracts.

"Without adequate staff engaged in oversight and enforcement, even the best regulations cannot meaningfully ensure game integrity and consumer protection," the league's lawyers wrote.

The NFL says it has urged the CFTC and prediction market operators to adopt a list of prohibited wagers it views as the greatest threats to game integrity, but they have declined. It has also asked the commission to raise the trading age on prediction markets from 18 to 21.

What do Kalshi and Polymarket say?

Kalshi spokeswoman Elisabeth Diana said market integrity is the company's top priority, pointing to partnerships with the NHL, Major League Baseball and other sports organizations.

"Contrary to the NFL's statements, the CFTC is actively policing sports-related markets, which are now listed on nearly every U.S. commodities exchange," Diana said. "The CFTC's ongoing rulemaking addresses many of the NFL's supposed concerns. And those rules sit atop the same comprehensive federal enforcement that protects trillions of dollars of transactions in U.S. markets."

Diana added that Kalshi has tried to collaborate with the NFL on market integrity but has received no response.

A Polymarket spokesperson said the operator "shares the NFL's commitment to preserving the integrity of the game" and is working toward "a harmonized federal framework that delivers a stronger, more consistent form of integrity compared to a patchwork of disconnected state laws built for a bygone era."

CFTC spokeswoman Brooke Nethercott said the commission has engaged with the NFL on its rulemaking agenda and policy priorities. She noted the league declined to sign a memorandum of understanding that would have allowed better cooperation and information exchange "to promote the integrity and resilience of prediction markets."

Is the Supreme Court likely to take the case?

The legal environment is increasingly fractured. Roughly 20 states are involved in litigation over prediction markets, and a split has formed among appeals courts — a factor that raises the odds of Supreme Court intervention.

The 6th and 9th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have ruled in favor of states seeking to regulate prediction markets. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Kalshi in a ruling earlier this year.

"As between the two approaches, the NFL believes the Sixth and Ninth Circuits got it right, given the current landscape," the league's lawyers wrote.

Ohio filed a brief Wednesday urging the high court to side with New Jersey and preserve state power to regulate prediction markets, as states already do with casino gambling and sports betting. The filing drew backing from 38 states, including Republican and Democratic attorneys general from Arkansas, California, Illinois, Missouri, New York, South Carolina and Pennsylvania.

Separately, the U.S. Government Accountability Office is investigating CFTC staffing levels at the request of Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee. A GAO spokesperson said Thursday the office is "awaiting staff that are working on other engagements before the work gets underway soon."

With 38 states, the NFL and a federal agency all staking out positions, the Supreme Court's decision on whether to hear the case will shape who controls a market already moving billions of dollars tied to professional sports.