The NFL has asked the US Supreme Court to resolve a split among federal appeals courts over the regulation of sports prediction markets.
The Third Circuit accepted Kalshi’s argument that its sports contracts fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The Sixth and Ninth Circuits reached the opposite conclusion.
Two legal questions before the Court
The dispute turns on whether sports-event contracts qualify as “swaps” under the Commodity Exchange Act. It also involves the question of whether federal oversight prevents states from applying their own gambling laws.
The National Football League (NFL) filed an amicus brief on Thursday in support of a petition for review from New Jersey officials in their dispute with Kalshi. In the brief, the league argued that sports-related event contracts should remain subject to state gambling laws and should not fall exclusively under the CFTC.
“Congress did not preempt states from prohibiting or regulating sports bets offered on DCMs,” the NFL wrote.
States line up behind the petition
39 other states and the District of Columbia also filed a brief in support of review. The coalition argued that federal preemption would undermine long-standing gambling protections.
“They cannot strip the States of their core sovereign power through relabeling and window-dressing,” the coalition wrote in its brief. The states pointed to licensing requirements, exclusion lists, age restrictions and spending limits among the safeguards at risk.
League seeks a ruling before 2027
The NFL asked the Supreme Court to grant review now. According to the league, granting review now would allow either state protections to apply or efforts to improve federal safeguards before the 2027 NFL season.
“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 brief states.
The commercial exposure is substantial. According to the filing, NFL-related contracts accounted for $1.8 billion of the $3.3 billion in prediction-market trading volume on the first Sunday of this season.
Questions over CFTC resources
The brief also challenged the CFTC’s capacity to oversee sports wagering in addition to its other derivatives responsibilities. It cited 543 CFTC employees nationwide, compared with close to 400 employees each at the gaming regulatory bodies of Nevada and Pennsylvania.
According to the NFL, current and proposed federal rules provide no defined route for leagues to request emergency review and suspension of contracts when credible evidence suggests an integrity threat.
Exchanges and advocates push back
Kalshi disputed the NFL’s criticism. The company said the CFTC actively polices sports markets and that its ongoing rulemaking addresses the league’s concerns.
Polymarket said that it has developed surveillance tools and is working with federal regulators on a framework that it believes could provide stronger protections than state laws.
Americans For Fair Markets questioned the NFL’s position in a social media post on October 8, 2026. The group said the CFTC already polices these markets and is developing additional safeguards. It added that the NFL declined an agreement with the CFTC to cooperate and share information on market integrity.
According to the group, the league is calling for stronger federal oversight but turned down an opportunity to help improve it.
“That contradiction deserves an explanation,” the group wrote.
Protections the NFL wants in place
The brief identified four categories of contracts that the league wants prohibited: outcomes that a single person can easily manipulate; wagers that involve injuries, safety or misconduct; contracts contingent on officiating decisions; and outcomes known before settlement.
The NFL also called for operators to coordinate with sports bodies on prohibited-bettor lists. According to the league, insider-trading restrictions have limited practical value without the identification of people who possess confidential information.
The filing acknowledged that federal rules prohibit insider trading and that several exchanges use monitoring services. However, it questioned the effectiveness of these measures without engagement from leagues.
The league also raised age restrictions. The NFL said it had urged the CFTC to adopt a minimum betting age of 21, while federally regulated exchanges allow participation at 18.
In the brief, the NFL referenced comments it submitted in May and July. The league argued that the Commission and market operators had not implemented core aspects of those proposals.