The National Football League has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the regulation of sports prediction markets, arguing in an amicus brief filed October 8 that states — which already regulate legal sportsbooks — are better positioned to oversee sports-related contracts ‘given the current landscape.’
The NFL is backing New Jersey’s request for the justices to review a Third Circuit ruling in favor of prediction market company Kalshi. That April decision held that sports-event contracts traded on Kalshi’s federally regulated exchange are ‘swaps’ under the Commodity Exchange Act, giving the Commodity Futures Trading Commission exclusive jurisdiction and preempting state gambling laws.
The league argues the contracts are essentially sports betting regardless of classification. ‘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,’ lawyers for the NFL wrote.
According to the brief, on the first Sunday of this season more than half of all prediction markets trading volume — $1.8 billion out of $3.3 billion — was tied to the NFL. ‘Any delay from the Court will result in increasing consumer harm and risk to game integrity,’ the league wrote.
How prediction markets reached the Supreme Court’s door
New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport filed the petition on September 2, seeking to resolve what states describe as a nationwide turf war between state regulators and the CFTC. The dispute now spans at least 20 states, with related cases pending in five other federal appeals courts and before Massachusetts’ highest court.
The appeals courts are split. The Third Circuit sided with Kalshi; the Sixth and Ninth Circuits held that sports-related contracts are not swaps and that state gambling laws are not preempted, reaching similar conclusions in cases involving Ohio and Tennessee.
The NFL’s filing landed one day after 39 other states and the District of Columbia filed their own brief supporting New Jersey. Former U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd, former CFTC chairman Gary Gensler, 145 Indian tribes and tribal organizations, the American Gaming Association and the Casino Association of New Jersey have also filed amicus briefs urging review.
What the NFL wants from prediction markets regulation
The league wants the Court to clarify that states retain authority to regulate sports wagering offered through prediction markets, including licensing, age restrictions and integrity safeguards. It called sports prediction markets a ‘new form of sports betting’ that threatens the integrity of sporting events.
The brief challenged the CFTC’s capacity to police the activity, noting the agency has 543 employees nationwide, compared with close to 400 employees each at the gaming regulatory bodies of Nevada and Pennsylvania. It also urged a minimum betting age of 21 rather than 18, and identified four categories of contracts it wants prohibited.
Kalshi pushed back. Spokeswoman Elisabeth Diana said the company’s top priority is market integrity, pointing to partnerships with the NHL, Major League Baseball and other sports organizations. ‘The CFTC is actively policing sports-related markets, which are now listed on nearly every U.S. commodities exchange,’ Diana said, adding that the agency’s ongoing rulemaking addresses many of the NFL’s concerns.
What a Supreme Court ruling on prediction markets could change
If the justices take the case and side with New Jersey, operators of sports prediction markets could be required to secure state licenses where sports betting is legal rather than relying on uniform federal oversight — a shift that would fragment the national market the CFTC currently supervises.
The NFL urged the Court to grant review in time to establish state protections or improved federal safeguards before the 2027 season. ‘Billions of dollars will be bet on NFL games through prediction markets each season,’ the brief states — a volume the league says makes delay itself a threat to consumers and competition.
The Court has not said whether it will hear the case. But with three circuits divided, 40 states aligned against federal preemption, and the country’s most powerful sports league now in the fight, the battle over who controls America’s fastest-growing betting frontier is headed for its highest-stakes venue yet.