The National Football League has joined the push against exclusive federal oversight of prediction markets, filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court and backing the view that state gambling regulators, not the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, should police platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket.
The filing adds the NFL to a growing list of parties urging the court to reject the CFTC’s position. Other briefs submitted this week came from former regulator Gary Gensler and former Senator Chris Dodd, whose legislation underpins the legal framework the CFTC says gives it the final word over these markets.
NFL lines up with states, tribes and former officials
The league is now aligned with tribes, state governments, Gensler and one of the lawmakers who wrote the law prediction market operators are relying on. All are asking the Supreme Court to leave enforcement in the hands of local gambling authorities.
In its Thursday filing, the NFL said it had shared concerns with the CFTC about how sports wagers are conducted on these platforms. The agency claims it is the sole regulator of the exchanges, but the league told the court that its requests had not been answered, leaving betting practices that “pose real challenges to game integrity and consumer protection.” The NFL was one of several parties that filed briefs this week supporting the states’ argument that they can apply local gambling laws to emerging prediction markets.
Kalshi says it tried to work with the league
Kalshi said it had tried several times to work through the issue with the NFL without success.
“We have consistently tried to engage proactively and constructively with the NFL to collaborate on market integrity with no response,” Kalshi spokesperson Elisabeth Diana said in a statement.
The company also said it has secured partnerships with other professional sports leagues, including Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League, and that the NFL is the outlier. “All but the NFL have been willing to share data and collaborate to protect game integrity,” Diana said.
Conflicting court rulings have pushed the case toward the Supreme Court
The legal basis for sports wagering on prediction markets has reached a turning point. One federal court backed Kalshi’s argument that the CFTC should be its only regulator. Two others sided with the states, saying sports betting belongs under state gambling laws and state regulators.
That split has created what the NFL described as an uncertain and hazardous legal environment. The league made that point in its amicus filing as New Jersey asked the Supreme Court to take the case and issue a definitive ruling.
The CFTC, though, continues to argue that exchanges under its supervision, including Kalshi and Polymarket, fall within its exclusive authority and that federal oversight preempts state power.
Chris Dodd and Gary Gensler challenge the CFTC’s reading of the law
Among the parties opposing the CFTC and Kalshi is former Senator Chris Dodd, one of the authors of the Dodd-Frank Act. Dodd said he is “uniquely qualified” to address the issue and wrote that his bill “did not set out to authorize nationwide sports betting through derivatives markets or displace decades of state and tribal primacy over gaming regulation.”
Gensler, who led the CFTC when Dodd-Frank was implemented and later headed the Securities and Exchange Commission, also filed a brief. He pushed back on the position taken by current CFTC Chairman Mike Selig and argued that Congress never intended to override state gambling laws.
“Congress did not transfer jurisdiction over sports betting from the states to the CFTC,” Gensler wrote. “When Congress amended the [Commodity Exchange Act] through Dodd-Frank, it was addressing the causes of the recent financial crisis, not undoing federal policy against sports betting and displacing traditional state and tribal regulation.”
NFL says federal oversight falls short of state standards
The NFL argued that the CFTC is not holding Kalshi and similar firms to standards as strict as those imposed by state regulators. In the league’s words, federally regulated firms “are not subject to the same rigorous regulatory constructs and oversight provided by state gaming authorities.”
Since state-regulated betting on football began, the league said its top priority has been “preserving the integrity of its games and protecting its fans as legal sports betting spread state by state.”
The brief said the CFTC’s approach falls short in several areas:
- It allows wagering on outcomes that can be manipulated by the choices of a single player.
- It allows people younger than 21 to place bets.
- The agency does not have enough staff to supervise the markets as effectively as the states do.
CFTC says it has been in contact with the NFL
The federal agency answered that criticism on Thursday, saying, “Since day 1, the CFTC has engaged with the NFL regarding the agency’s rulemaking agenda and policy priorities.”
The CFTC added that it was “unfortunate” the NFL chose not to secure an arrangement with the agency, which it said “would’ve provided the league the ability to better discuss, cooperate, and exchange information with us to promote the integrity and resilience of prediction markets.”
The NFL, however, maintained that the CFTC has “stuck to a more laissez-faire approach” than the states and asked the Supreme Court to move quickly.
“Billions of dollars will be bet on NFL games through prediction markets each season, and any delay from the court will result in increasing consumer harm and risk to game integrity,” the league said in its brief.