The NFL has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the court to resolve a dispute over who has regulatory authority over prediction markets. The league argues that state regulators who oversee legal sportsbooks are better equipped to supervise sports‑related contracts than the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which claims sole federal jurisdiction.
In the brief, the NFL highlighted its substantial financial stake in the markets, noting that more than half of the $3.3 billion total trading volume on the opening Sunday of the current season—$1.8 billion—was tied to its games. The league warned that without a clear ruling, operators could exploit gaps between state and federal regulation, potentially harming consumers and compromising the integrity of sports events.
Kalshi’s spokesperson Elisabeth Diana countered that the CFTC actively polices sports‑related markets, which are now listed on nearly every U.S. commodities exchange. She said the agency’s ongoing rulemaking addresses many of the NFL’s concerns and that the CFTC’s enforcement system protects trillions of dollars in U.S. transactions. Polymarket also stated it shares the NFL’s commitment to game integrity while working toward a harmonized federal framework.
Ohio, joined by a bipartisan coalition of 38 states, filed a brief urging the Court to uphold state powers over prediction markets alongside casino gambling and sports betting. The NFL cited recent appellate decisions, noting that the 6th and 9th Circuits ruled in favor of state authority while the 3rd Circuit ruled for Kalshi. The league maintains that the former decisions better reflect the current regulatory landscape and expressed concerns over the CFTC’s staffing levels for effective oversight.
.jpeg?trim=0,11,0,11&width=1200&height=800&crop=1200:800)
