NFL tells Supreme Court prediction markets are gambling subject to state rules

The league has waded into the fight over sports prediction markets, filing a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court dispute between Kalshi and New Jersey. In it, the NFL argues that prediction markets are gambling and should be subject to regulation by the states, per PFT via CNBC.

The underlying battle is jurisdictional. Kalshi contends that prediction markets fall within the exclusive province of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a federal agency — which would let them be offered everywhere with no state-imposed rules. New Jersey and the NFL argue the opposite: if they're gambling, each state's laws apply, which would block sports-related markets in states where betting isn't legalized.

The league's reasoning isn't a hard opposition to the products themselves. In a statement to CNBC, the NFL said "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."

So the league's position lands on regulation rather than a flat ban. The playbook is familiar: fight the loosening of rules and, if the prediction markets ultimately win, position itself to benefit from them, much as it did when sports betting expanded after the 2018 Supreme Court decision. The PFT story lays out the full argument.