Poll Shows Americans Favor Sports Prediction Markets Over Political Ones as Industry Eyes Election Growth
A new POLITICO/Public First survey reveals a clear split in how Americans view prediction markets. Respondents are far more comfortable with contracts tied to sports than those linked to elections or politics. This comes as the sector pushes hard into political offerings, with analysts calling it a major growth area.
The findings highlight a tension. While trading volumes on political events are climbing, public sentiment and legislative moves suggest resistance. For industry executives, the data raises practical questions about where to allocate resources and how to manage regulatory exposure.
Strong Support for Sports Contracts
Sports event contracts received the strongest backing. 53% of respondents say these should be legal, while 23% say they should be illegal. Weather and award show contracts also drew solid support, with 46% backing weather-related markets and similar numbers for award shows.
This preference aligns with where most trading happens today. Sports still dominate overall volume. The pattern suggests operators can lean into familiar territory without triggering the same level of pushback.
From the supplier side, this kind of clarity helps. Sports contracts fit cleanly into existing risk and compliance frameworks. Political markets do not.
Sharp Opposition to Political and Sensitive Markets
Election betting faces the steepest resistance. 44% of respondents believe it should be illegal, compared with 30% who say it should be legal. Similar opposition appeared for markets on presidential pardons (43% illegal versus 25% legal) and comments by the president or news outlets (40% opposed versus 27% in favor).
War and terrorism contracts generated the strongest overall pushback. 57% said betting on wars should be illegal. 64% opposed markets involving acts of terrorism.
Overall sentiment on prediction markets remains divided. 29% called their growing popularity a negative, against 19% who viewed it positively. Another 28% saw it as neutral and 24% were unsure. More than half of respondents said they would not place a wager in a prediction market.
These numbers matter because they mirror the concerns driving legislation. Public skepticism is not abstract. It feeds directly into policy debates that can restrict product roadmaps.
Political Markets as a Projected Growth Driver
Despite the sentiment, the industry is doubling down on politics. Nearly $700 million has already traded on 2028 presidential election markets across Kalshi and Polymarket’s international platform. The 2024 U.S. presidential election generated more than $3.6bn in volume on Polymarket’s international platform.
Bloomberg Intelligence analysts described politics, elections, and public policy contracts as the industry’s “greatest opportunity.” They estimated such markets could account for 27% of trading volume by 2030, up from roughly 10% in early 2025. The analysts projected political and public policy markets could generate approximately $266 billion in annual trading volume by 2030.
While sports currently account for the majority of trading, the shift toward political contracts is clear on paper. The question is whether the projected volumes can materialize if public and legislative headwinds intensify.
In my experience across European regulated markets, operators price in regulatory overhead faster than most analysts expect. The U.S. picture looks more fragmented.
Legislative Scrutiny Reflects Public Concerns
The survey lands amid active legislative moves at federal and state levels. More than 25 prediction market-related bills have been introduced this year at the federal level. Several would prohibit election-related contracts, sports-event contracts, or participation by elected officials and government insiders.
Specific proposals include the Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act, which would prohibit contracts for sports and election events. The Stop Trading on Predictions and Corrupt Bets Act would ban contracts tied to elections, government actions, military conflicts, and sporting events. Other bills target participation by members of Congress, senior government officials, judges, and campaign insiders.
At the state level, Minnesota enacted the nation’s first prediction market ban, covering a wide range of event contracts including sports, elections, weather, and award shows. The CFTC, Kalshi, and Polymarket subsequently filed suits challenging the law. Tennessee took a narrower approach, enacting legislation that creates criminal penalties for insider trading and market manipulation involving prediction markets.
The bills are largely driven by concerns about election integrity, insider trading, market manipulation, and expanding wagering into areas traditionally outside gambling regulation. The survey suggests those concerns resonate with many Americans.
This is where the risk sits. A sector that bets on rapid political market expansion could face repeated legal and reputational friction. Counterarguments exist. Some point to the informational value of liquid markets and the precedent of sports betting legalization. Yet the poll shows a consistent preference gap that lawmakers are already citing.
The Bottom Line
The data paints a practical picture for executives. Sports prediction markets enjoy majority support and lower regulatory heat. Political markets show strong growth projections but face majority opposition and a thicket of bills at every level of government. The gap is not closing on its own. Operators and platforms will need sharper compliance strategies, clearer user segmentation, and possibly slower rollouts on the political side if they want to protect long-term access to both audiences. Those who treat the public sentiment numbers as seriously as the volume forecasts will be better positioned when the next round of legislation lands. For guidance on navigating these market entry and advisory questions, see SCCG Management’s services overview.
