NFL Files Amicus Brief Asking Supreme Court to Treat Prediction Markets as Gambling

The National Football League filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court on 8 October 2026 backing New Jersey in its dispute with prediction market operator Kalshi. The league contends sports-event contracts traded on designated contract markets do not qualify as swaps under the Dodd‑Frank Act and therefore should be subject to state gambling laws, not exclusive Commodity Futures Trading Commission oversight.

Why the NFL sent the brief on prediction markets

The brief presses a legal question at the heart of a federal circuit split: whether sports event contracts are swaps that fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The Third Circuit held in April 2026 that New Jersey was blocked from enforcing state gambling laws against Kalshi. By contrast, the Sixth and Ninth Circuits sided with states including Ohio, Tennessee, California and Nevada, allowing states to enforce their gambling rules against prediction markets. The NFL told the Court it supports the Sixth and Ninth Circuit outcomes.

"Read in its statutory and historical context, Dodd‑Frank's definition of 'swap' reaches only instruments created and used for the purpose of hedging preexisting risk," the brief said.

The league argues the opposite is true for sports contracts: they create risk for gambling purposes rather than hedging.

How the league links prediction markets to integrity risks

The brief frames prediction markets as a threat to game integrity and consumer protections. The NFL notes that the league is partnered with licensed operators Fanatics, FanDuel and DraftKings, and that those sportsbook partners follow the league's lists of prohibited wagers and bettor restrictions designed to mitigate insider trading and manipulation. The league argues prediction markets have not adopted the same safeguards.

The brief cites a set of four categories of markets the NFL has flagged as "objectionable" and says some operators continued to list certain contracts despite league objections. The NFL criticised the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's approach to those contracts and to operator self‑certification, noting that the CFTC has not issued a flat ban on the categories the league highlighted and that self‑certification allows contracts to list for trading the next business day.

"Although the NFL, among others, has encouraged the Commission and the DCMs to adopt safeguards and rules for sports wagering like those in the state‑regulated world of traditional [legal sports books], the Commission and DCMs so far have stuck to a more laissez‑faire approach," the brief said.

Regulatory staffing and oversight concerns

The brief identifies staffing at the CFTC as a practical limit on effective oversight. It states the Commission had 543 employees as of September 2025 after what it describes as roughly a 25% reduction in staff since President Donald Trump took office in January 2025. The NFL contrasts that headcount with state gaming boards, noting that regulators in Pennsylvania and Nevada each employ close to 400 people to regulate gaming within those states.

The league's argument is procedural as much as substantive: without comparable enforcement capacity, the league says, the CFTC and designated contract markets cannot deliver the same integrity protections that state gaming authorities provide.

What the NFL wants from the Court and the calendar pressure

The NFL told the Court it prefers a ruling consistent with the Sixth and Ninth Circuits that would let states apply their gambling laws to prediction markets. That outcome would subject prediction markets to the same rules state‑licensed sportsbooks follow, including restricted wager lists and the ability to enforce prohibited bettor lists. The league wants clarity before the 2027 NFL season, saying there are "billions of dollars bet on NFL games through prediction markets" and that a longer delay would "result in increasing consumer harm and risk to game integrity."

If the Supreme Court agrees with the Third Circuit and concludes the CFTC has exclusive regulatory authority, the NFL says it would intensify efforts to persuade the Commission, DCMs and Congress to adopt stronger integrity and consumer protections ahead of the 2027 season.

Market mechanics and operator behaviour the brief targets

The brief describes two practical concerns operators and regulators face today:

• the self‑certification mechanism that lets a prediction market list contracts for trading on the next business day unless the Commission intervenes; and

• the absence of universal adoption of prohibited bettor lists by prediction market operators to block insiders.

The NFL says operators such as Kalshi and Polymarket have withdrawn some markets after league notices but that the withdrawals have not satisfied the league because the CFTC has not adopted consistent prohibitions or oversight processes. The league also questions whether prediction market platforms can or will adopt integrity measures comparable to state‑regulated sportsbooks operated by its partners Fanatics, FanDuel and DraftKings.

What operators and regulators will watch next

The Supreme Court's decision whether to take the case will determine the next phase of legal uncertainty. A ruling that leaves prediction markets under CFTC jurisdiction would shift the debate to federal rulemaking and possible congressional action. A ruling that allows states to apply gambling law to DCM‑listed sports contracts would bring prediction markets into the multi‑state patchwork of sports wagering regulation and potentially require platforms to adopt state‑law compliance regimes similar to licensed sportsbooks.

For operators, the immediate implication is commercial and compliance risk: a state‑led standard would force platform changes in markets where state gambling law applies; a CFTC‑led regime would place emphasis on federal rulemaking and on whether the Commission tightens its self‑certification and DCM oversight.

Bottom line for the 2027 season

The NFL frames the Supreme Court filing as an integrity and consumer protection move with a clear timetable: it wants clarity before the 2027 season and will push for either state enforcement or stronger federal safeguards depending on the Court's decision. How the industry responds—whether prediction market operators adopt the NFL's prohibited lists or whether the CFTC changes course—will determine the practical regulatory regime that governs sports event contracts next year.