NFL backs Supreme Court review in betting oversight case

"The league is joining with ​many voices to encourage the Court to take this opportunity, now, to resolve the disagreement in the lower courts about who ​should regulate prediction markets — the CFTC or the states," an NFL spokesperson.

The NFL said the ⁠issue would be less significant if the CFTC adopted protections comparable to those used by state gambling regulators, adding that it was "unclear ​if the Commission has the resources or staff to adequately regulate sports betting.

"The league also said it has urged the CFTC and prediction-market companies ​to adopt safeguards including restrictions on bets susceptible to manipulation, protections against betting by insiders and a minimum age of 21.

"Neither the CFTC nor the prediction market companies themselves — despite our persistent urging — have banned categories of bets susceptible to manipulation or set a 21 age limit," the NFL spokesperson said. In a ​statement to Reuters, the CFTC said it had engaged with the NFL from the beginning.

"It's unfortunate the NFL declined to sign an MOU (Memorandum ​of Understanding) with the CFTC which would've provided the league the ability to better discuss, cooperate, and exchange information with us to promote the integrity ‌and resilience ⁠of prediction markets," the agency said.

COURT SPLIT PUTS PREDICTION-MARKET OVERSIGHT IN FOCUSThe case follows a September 25 ruling by the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals against prediction-market operator Kalshi, which held that Ohio and Tennessee can regulate its event contracts under their gambling laws. The ruling deepened a split among federal appeals courts and raised the prospect of Supreme Court review.

Kalshi said it expected the decision would not withstand ​further review. "The ruling shows exactly why ​a state-by-state patchwork doesn't work," ⁠company spokesperson Dani Lever. "Markets can't operate when the rules change at every state line, which is why Congress created a single federal regulator with nationwide rules.

"Prediction markets allow users to trade contracts ​tied to outcomes including sports, elections, weather and cultural events. States have challenged the ability of operators ​such as Kalshi ⁠and Polymarket to offer such contracts without complying with state gambling laws.

Kalshi has until November 9 to respond to the petition. The court is not expected to decide whether to hear the case before December. Sports leagues have become increasingly vocal about gambling-related integrity and safety risks as wagering has ⁠expanded across ​the US following the Supreme Court's 2018 decision striking down a federal ban ​on state-authorized sports betting.

Kalshi said it expected the decision would not withstand ​further review. "The ruling shows exactly why ​a state-by-state patchwork doesn't work," ⁠company spokesperson Dani Lever. "Markets can't operate when the rules change at every state line, which is why Congress created a single federal regulator with nationwide rules.

"Prediction markets allow users to trade contracts ​tied to outcomes including sports, elections, weather and cultural events. States have challenged the ability of operators ​such as Kalshi ⁠and Polymarket to offer such contracts without complying with state gambling laws.

Kalshi has until November 9 to respond to the petition. The court is not expected to decide whether to hear the case before December. Sports leagues have become increasingly vocal about gambling-related integrity and safety risks as wagering has ⁠expanded across ​the US following the Supreme Court's 2018 decision striking down a federal ban ​on state-authorized sports betting.

Last month, the NFL and four other major US professional leagues, along with their players' associations, called on state regulators to impose lifetime betting bans on ​people who threaten or harass athletes, coaches, officials or their families over wagers.