5BTC or 111% + 111 Free Spins!
New players only. Exclusive 111% Welcome Bonus + 111 Free Spins
Source: Unsplash
A quiet policy fight around prediction markets just turned louder. The National Football League stepped directly into the debate, warning federal lawmakers that sports related event contracts could weaken game integrity and leave consumers exposed.
The message landed in Washington as regulators and market operators argue over who should control prediction markets. With contracts now available nationwide, the league sees growing tension between federal oversight and state based sports betting rules.
Good to Know
The NFL submitted written testimony to the US House Committee on Agriculture ahead of a hearing focused on prediction market oversight by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
The timing matters. State gambling regulators and prediction market operators remain locked in legal disputes over jurisdiction, enforcement, and regulatory authority. Sports leagues now appear ready to influence that outcome.
Prediction markets allow users to trade contracts tied to real world events, including sports results. According to the NFL, those markets currently operate in all 50 states, while traditional sports betting remains legal in 39 states and Washington DC.
Jeff Miller, executive vice president for communications, public affairs, and policy at the NFL, framed the concern around access without guardrails.
“We are particularly troubled that several sports-related futures contracts have been launched nationwide, including in jurisdictions where sports betting has not been legalized,” Miller said.
The league argues that prediction market contracts tied to sports outcomes fall outside state regulatory systems that oversee sportsbooks. State regulators typically monitor betting activity, apply wager limits, and consult leagues on what types of bets belong in the market.
Miller warned that prediction market contracts bypass those systems entirely.
“These contracts fall outside the purview of state regulatory authorities and the safeguards they impose upon the industry,” Miller said.
The NFL also raised alarms about scale. According to the league, money flowing into prediction markets could eventually exceed wagering volume handled by regulated sportsbooks, raising integrity risks as participation grows.
The testimony cited examples of contracts tied to officiating decisions or safety related phrases mentioned during broadcasts as especially concerning.
The league urged Congress and the CFTC to step in before sports related event contracts gain broader acceptance.
“In each of these state-regulated markets, regulators and state legislators closely monitor betting activity and, with input from professional sports leagues, can determine which bets and wager levels are acceptable,” Miller wrote. “Those guardrails do not exist in prediction markets.”
“Congress and the CFTC should prohibit these and other types of objectionable bets among the many consumer and integrity protective measures needed before sports-related event contracts are legalized.”
Industry groups did not stay quiet.
The Coalition for Prediction Markets, which represents several major operators, rejected the idea that prediction markets lack oversight. A coalition spokesperson compared the NFL argument to a misunderstanding of how federal market regulation works.
“This testimony is like saying the stock market has no rules,” the spokesperson told ESPN. “The CFTC’s regulations on abusive or manipulative trading apply to prediction markets just like the SEC’s regulations apply to the stock market.”