NFL backs Supreme Court review in betting oversight case

Oct 8 : The National Football League on Thursday backed New Jersey officials' request for US Supreme Court review of a dispute over whether federal regulators or states should oversee sports-related prediction-market contracts, saying the Commodity Futures Trading Commission may lack resources to adequately police sports betting.

The NFL filed an amicus brief supporting the appeal, urging the court to resolve a split among lower courts over whether the CFTC or state regulators have authority over prediction markets.

"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 told Reuters.

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 FOCUS

The 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 told Reuters last month.

"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.