Key facts
- The NFL urged the Supreme Court to allow states to regulate prediction markets.
- The league argues that prediction markets threaten game integrity and are susceptible to manipulation.
- The NFL filed an amicus brief supporting New Jersey officials' petition to review a case against prediction market platform Kalshi.
- The NFL stated that many sporting event contracts on platforms like Kalshi are "highly susceptible to manipulation" or "otherwise inherently objectionable."
- 39 US states and the District of Columbia also support New Jersey's position, citing a "national turf war" over prediction market regulation.
The National Football League (NFL) has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to permit states to regulate prediction markets, arguing that these platforms pose a threat to game integrity and constitute a form of gambling. In an amicus brief filed on Wednesday, the league supported New Jersey officials' petition for the Supreme Court to consider a case against Kalshi, a prediction market platform.
The NFL's filing aligns with arguments that the case addresses potential issues with classifying sporting-event contracts on prediction markets as "swaps" and that it warrants review to "preserve game integrity" and "protect customers." The league highlighted that on the first Sunday of the football season, over half of all prediction market trading volume, approximately $1.8 billion out of $3.3 billion, was related to the NFL.
The league contends that many event contracts on platforms like Kalshi are "highly susceptible to manipulation" or "otherwise inherently objectionable," potentially allowing individuals to alter game outcomes. Furthermore, the NFL raised concerns about the lack of "sensible safeguards" from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and suggested that federalizing sports betting regulation is a "major question" for the Supreme Court.
In addition to the NFL, 39 U.S. states and the District of Columbia filed an amicus brief supporting New Jersey's position, describing the regulatory conflict as a "national turf war" that requires Supreme Court intervention to resolve jurisdictional ambiguities and provide clear guidance.