NFL asks Supreme Court to confirm state control over prediction markets

The National Football League filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court on 9 October 2026 supporting New Jersey regulators in their dispute with the Kalshi platform. The league asks the Court to clarify whether states retain authority to regulate sports prediction contracts or whether those contracts must be treated as federal instruments under the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

The NFL petition and the core dispute over sports prediction markets

The NFL contends that prediction contracts traded on platforms such as Kalshi are illegal wagers rather than financial swaps subject to federal regulation. In its brief the league argues that oversight by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is insufficient, citing the regulator’s limited resources, and that the constitutional tradition of state police powers should prevail for intrastate gaming control.

The league also highlights concrete integrity risks: vulnerabilities to deliberate game manipulation and to insider information about on-field events, such as missed kicks, intentional fumbles, injuries or officiating details that could be known in advance by people inside a sports organization.

Volume and examples: how large the market is according to the NFL

The NFL supplies figures to support its position. The league said that on the first Sunday of the season American football accounted for $1.8 billion in trading volume on prediction markets, a figure that, according to its filing, exceeded half of the total volume recorded on those platforms that day. That number is central to the NFL’s argument about the scale of the phenomenon and exposure to integrity risks.

Minimum age and the league’s contrasting stance

The NFL also demands a mandatory minimum age of 21 years to participate in sports prediction markets, consistent with most state rules on sports betting. That requirement clashes with Kalshi’s policy, which allows users from 18 years old.

The league does not close the door to prediction markets in the abstract, but conditions their acceptance on the application of state regulation and the adoption of measures that reduce the possibility of manipulation.

Federal position and split among courts

Several federal courts of appeals have issued divided rulings on whether state gaming laws can prevail over federal supervision for these contracts. In that context the NFL argues that Congress lacks constitutional authority to supplant state police powers over intrastate gaming, and asks the Supreme Court to resolve the question uniformly.

Executive comments and the reference to Roger Goodell

Commissioner Roger Goodell had taken a cautious position on these platforms in a 10 September 2026 interview in Australia, saying the league prefers not to be first into the market and prefers to wait and see how regulations develop.

Kalshi response and spokesperson Elisabeth Diana quoted

Kalshi publicly responded to the NFL filing. Elisabeth Diana, Kalshi’s spokesperson, told CNBC that the CFTC is conducting ongoing rulemaking that, in her view, will address many of the NFL’s concerns. Diana added that Kalshi has tried to open a dialogue with the league without response and expressed hope that the NFL will change its position and begin collaborating on market integrity.

"The CFTC’s ongoing rulemaking regarding prediction markets will address many of the NFL’s concerns, and the federal agency has the ability to police sports-related event contract markets." — Elisabeth Diana, Kalshi spokesperson, to CNBC

"We have consistently tried to engage proactively and constructively with the NFL to collaborate on market integrity with no response. We hope they change their position and start engaging to help ensure the integrity of sports." — Elisabeth Diana, Kalshi spokesperson, to CNBC

Comparison with other leagues and commercial relationships

The NFL filing also notes differences among major U.S. leagues: the National Hockey League (NHL), Major League Baseball (MLB), Major League Soccer (MLS) and Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) maintain commercial partnerships with prediction or betting platforms; by contrast, the NFL, the National Basketball Association (NBA) and the PGA have not established similar agreements with those services.

What a Supreme Court ruling would mean for operators and regulators

If the Supreme Court backs the NFL and state regulators’ view, states would retain broad powers to impose limits such as a 21-year minimum age, licensing requirements and integrity rules. If the Court finds that the CFTC has the final say, platforms could operate under a uniform federal framework, reducing states’ ability to impose divergent restrictions.

For state regulators and platform operators this means the ruling will affect compliance requirements, integrity controls, supervisory obligations and possible changes in age-based customer bases.

What’s next in the dispute

The matter now rests with the Supreme Court. The decision will be determinative for setting a national rule on whether sports prediction markets are essentially financial instruments regulated by the CFTC or forms of gaming primarily subject to state control. The ruling will affect legislators, operators, regulators and the leagues themselves.

For regulatory monitoring and coverage of court decisions related to betting and prediction markets, readers will find context in our regulation section and in our sports betting coverage at sports.