TLDR
- The NFL filed a brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to let states regulate prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket.
- Gary Gensler and former Senator Chris Dodd also oppose letting the CFTC be the sole regulator.
- The NFL says Kalshi has ignored its requests to discuss game integrity concerns.
- 39 states and Washington, D.C. want the Supreme Court to resolve a “national turf war” over jurisdiction.
- Kalshi says it has partnered with other leagues and claims it cannot be regulated by 50 different states.
The National Football League has entered the legal fight over prediction markets. It filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court this week.
The National Football League urged the US Supreme Court to allow state regulation of prediction markets in a stance putting it at odds with the Trump administration in a high-stakes clash https://t.co/hEJVNFLxWy
— Bloomberg (@business) October 8, 2026
The league wants states to have the power to regulate platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket. Right now, these companies argue only the federal government should oversee them.
The NFL said it tried to raise concerns with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. It claims those concerns went unanswered.
The league wrote that current rules “pose real challenges to game integrity and consumer protection.” This was stated directly in its filing.
Kalshi responded through a spokesperson. The company said it has tried to work with the NFL multiple times.
Kalshi also pointed out it has deals with other leagues. Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League were both named as partners.
Courts Are Split on Who Regulates Prediction Markets
Federal courts have disagreed on this issue. One court sided with Kalshi, saying the CFTC should be the only regulator.
Two other courts sided with states instead. They said sports betting should fall under state gambling laws.
New Jersey has asked the Supreme Court to settle the matter. The state’s case involves its dispute with Kalshi directly.
Former CFTC chair Gary Gensler also filed a brief. He argued that Congress never meant to let the CFTC override state gambling laws.
Former Senator Chris Dodd made a similar point. He co-wrote the law the CFTC relies on and said it was not meant for sports betting.
The NFL raised specific concerns about how bets are structured. It said some contracts can be influenced by one person’s actions.
A player changing how hard they play, or an official’s call, could affect results. The league said this makes certain bets easy to manipulate.
States Say Jurisdiction Dispute Needs a Final Answer
The NFL also claimed the CFTC lets people under 21 place bets. It said the agency does not have enough staff to properly watch the markets.
The CFTC pushed back this week. It said it had reached out to the NFL since the start of its rulemaking process.
The agency called it “unfortunate” that the NFL did not work with it directly. It said doing so would have allowed more information sharing.
The NFL disagreed with that framing. It said the CFTC has taken a more hands-off approach compared to state regulators.
Separately, 39 states and Washington, D.C. filed their own brief. They called the current situation a “national turf war” between states and the CFTC.
They asked the Supreme Court to clarify the CFTC’s authority. They said delays would only make the legal conflict worse.
The NFL cited data showing high betting volume tied to its games. It said more than half of all prediction market trading volume on one Sunday came from NFL games.
Kalshi has until November 9 to respond to New Jersey’s filing. The Supreme Court has not said whether it will take up the case.
Be the first to comment