NFL Urges Supreme Court to Let States Regulate Sports Prediction Markets
publishers 26articles 77first reported 2 Oct, 13:21 UTCdeveloping since 3 Oct · 17 editions
The NFL urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to hear New Jersey’s challenge over sports prediction markets and back states’ authority to regulate sports contracts as gambling.
In a 24-page amicus brief supporting New Jersey regulators in their dispute with Kalshi, the league argued that sports contracts are wagers on game outcomes rather than financial swaps subject exclusively to federal oversight by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. A majority of states has also backed New Jersey’s request for Supreme Court review.
The NFL said about $1.8 billion was traded on football contracts on the opening Sunday of the 2026 season, accounting for more than half of prediction-market trading that day. It asked the court to act “before another NFL season goes by.” The court has not agreed to hear the case.
The league cited concerns about contracts tied to injuries, officiating and plays that participants could potentially manipulate, such as missed field goals or fumbles. It also criticized the absence of a minimum betting age of 21 on some platforms; Kalshi permits customers as young as 18. The NFL said it is not opposed to prediction markets but said that, given the CFTC's current resource constraints, the job is better left to the states.
Federal appeals courts have split on the issue. The Third Circuit sided with Kalshi in its New Jersey dispute, while the Ninth Circuit allowed Nevada regulators to enforce state gambling laws against the company’s sports contracts. Kalshi maintains that federal CFTC regulation preempts state gambling restrictions.
HOW THIS STORY WAS MADE
Written from 8 articles, 2 with the publisher's own text; 8 independent newsrooms once syndicated copies count as one; this version written 144 h after the record first saw the story; the editor revised it.
- Publishers
- 26
- Source articles
- 77
- Given to the writer
- 8, 2 with the article's own text
- Independent newsrooms
- 8
- This version written
- 144 h after the record first saw the story
- Second model (editor)
- revised
- Publication gate
- passed
- Human review
- none
WHAT THE EDITOR DID
The second model checked the writer's draft against the same sources and changed it before publication. Struck words were in the draft; underlined words are its corrections.
WHAT IT FLAGGED editor revise: Several claims overstate or slightly distort the sourced reporting and can be fixed with narrower wording. - "affirm states’ authority to regulate the contracts as gambling": The sources say the NFL urged the Supreme Court to back state regulators or decide whether states should regulate sports prediction markets; they do not say the NFL asked the court specifically to affirm states’ authority to regulate all such contracts as gambling. - "A bipartisan majority of states has also backed New Jersey’s request for Supreme Court review.": The sources say a bipartisan group or majority of states backed New Jersey's request, but not that it was a bipartisan majority. - "The league cited risks involving contracts tied to injuries, officiating and plays that participants could potentially manipulate, such as missed field goals or fumbles.": The sources say the NFL cited risks involving injuries, officiating and plays such as missed field goals or fumbles, but the story's wording could misleadingly imply injuries and officiating are also manipulable by participants; the sources distinguish manipulation risks from insider-information risks. - "The NFL said it is not opposed to prediction markets but believes state regulators are better equipped to oversee sports wagering.": The sources say the NFL is not opposed to prediction markets and said the job is better left to states given CFTC resource constraints; the story overstates this as a broader claim that state regulators are better equipped to oversee sports wagering.
THE DRAFT AND THE CHANGES
NFL Urges Supreme Court to Let States Regulate Sports Prediction Markets
The NFL urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to hear New Jersey’s challenge over sports prediction markets and affirmback states’ authority to regulate thesports contracts as gambling.
In a 24-page amicus brief supporting New Jersey regulators in their dispute with Kalshi, the league argued that sports contracts are wagers on game outcomes rather than financial swaps subject exclusively to federal oversight by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. A bipartisan majority of states has also backed New Jersey’s request for Supreme Court review.
The NFL said about $1.8 billion was traded on football contracts on the opening Sunday of the 2026 season, accounting for more than half of prediction-market trading that day. It asked the court to act “before another NFL season goes by.” The court has not agreed to hear the case.
The league cited risksconcerns involvingabout contracts tied to injuries, officiating and plays that participants could potentially manipulate, such as missed field goals or fumbles. It also criticized the absence of a minimum betting age of 21 on some platforms; Kalshi permits customers as young as 18. The NFL said it is not opposed to prediction markets but believessaid statethat, regulatorsgiven arethe CFTC's current resource constraints, the job is better equippedleft to overseethe sports wagering.states.
Federal appeals courts have split on the issue. The Third Circuit sided with Kalshi in its New Jersey dispute, while the Ninth Circuit allowed Nevada regulators to enforce state gambling laws against the company’s sports contracts. Kalshi maintains that federal CFTC regulation preempts state gambling restrictions.
Written by a language model from the sources above, then checked by a second model that may only cut, attribute or correct. How it works →