NFL Argues Sports Contracts on Platforms Are Gambling, Not Swaps

The NFL filed an amicus brief with the US Supreme Court on Wednesday, backing New Jersey officials who petitioned the justices to review a dispute involving KalshiEX LLC. The league contends that contracts tied to football games, including those on the Super Bowl and individual events such as field goals or player performance, represent wagers rather than financial derivatives protected solely by federal law.

According to the brief, these events are “highly susceptible to manipulation” or otherwise objectionable, as a single individual could influence outcomes through player actions, coaching decisions, or officiating calls. The NFL highlighted the league’s dominance in the market, noting that more than half of all trading volume on prediction platforms during the first Sunday of the season—roughly $1.8 billion out of $3.3 billion—related to NFL events.

The organization argued that federal oversight lacks the sensible safeguards found in state-regulated sportsbooks, including age minimums and restrictions on vulnerable contracts. It pointed out that platforms like Kalshi permit wagers from 18-year-olds, even in states where licensed books restrict them to 21.

The filing also questioned the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s limited capacity, noting it employs 543 staff members to oversee derivatives markets nationwide.

States and Industry Figures Join Push for Court Review

Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia filed a supporting amicus brief, describing the regulatory conflict between federal authorities and state gambling enforcement as a “national turf war.” The states urged the Supreme Court to resolve the issue and prevent escalation of inconsistencies across jurisdictions.

Former Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler and former Senator Chris Dodd, who helped shape the Commodity Exchange Act provisions underlying the federal claim, also submitted briefs in the case. The dispute stems from conflicting appeals court rulings: the Third Circuit upheld Kalshi’s position, while the Ninth and Sixth Circuits sided with states.

New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport and interim gaming enforcement director Mary Jo Flaherty led the original petition, filed in September. Kalshi has until November 9 to respond. The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to grant review.

Broader Implications for Prediction Markets

The case involves platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket, which offer contracts on a wide range of events beyond sports, including the 2027 Super Bowl and political outcomes. The NFL’s involvement underscores concerns about integrity in the most popular segment of these markets, where trading volume has surged since sports betting expanded.

Industry observers have noted that clarifying jurisdiction could shape consumer protections, enforcement across states, and the overall structure of event contracts. The dispute highlights tensions between efforts to expand access to prediction markets and longstanding concerns over game integrity and fair play in professional sports.

As the Supreme Court considers the petition, the outcome may influence how operators register with regulators, what contracts they can list, and whether state-level rules on minimum age, spending limits, and exclusions continue to apply to federally recognized platforms. No decision has been announced on whether the justices will take up the matter.