NFL Petitions Supreme Court to Address Circuit Split on CFTC Authority Over Sports Event Contracts

The NFL has asked the US Supreme Court to resolve a split among federal appeals courts over the regulation of sports prediction markets.

The Third Circuit accepted Kalshi’s argument that its sports contracts fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The Sixth and Ninth Circuits reached the opposite conclusion. The dispute centers on whether sports-event contracts qualify as “swaps” under the Commodity Exchange Act and whether federal oversight prevents states from applying their gambling laws.

NFL Brief Emphasizes State Protections and Integrity Risks

The NFL filed an amicus brief supporting a petition for review from New Jersey officials in their dispute with Kalshi. The league argued that sports-related event contracts should remain subject to state gambling laws and should not fall exclusively under the CFTC.

“Congress did not preempt states from prohibiting or regulating sports bets offered on DCMs,” the NFL wrote.

39 other states and the District of Columbia filed a brief in support. The coalition argued that federal preemption would undermine long-standing gambling protections such as licensing requirements, exclusion lists, age restrictions, and spending limits.

The NFL urged the Supreme Court to grant review now to allow state protections or improved federal safeguards before the 2027 NFL season. “Billions of dollars will be bet on NFL games through prediction markets each season, and any delay from the Court will result in increasing consumer harm and risk to game integrity,” the brief states.

NFL-related contracts accounted for $1.8 billion of the $3.3 billion in prediction-market trading volume on the first Sunday of this season. The filing challenged the CFTC’s capacity with 543 employees nationwide, compared with close to 400 employees each at the gaming regulatory bodies of Nevada and Pennsylvania. It noted the lack of any defined route for leagues to request emergency review and suspension of contracts on integrity threats. The NFL identified four categories of contracts it wants prohibited and called for coordination with sports bodies on prohibited-bettor lists. It also urged a minimum betting age of 21, rather than 18.

Exchange Responses Highlight Limits of League Critique

Kalshi disputed the NFL’s criticism. The company said the CFTC actively polices sports markets and that its ongoing rulemaking addresses the league’s concerns. Polymarket said it has developed surveillance tools and is working with federal regulators on a framework that it believes could provide stronger protections than state laws.

Americans For Fair Markets questioned the NFL’s position in a social media post on October 8, 2026. The group said the CFTC already polices these markets and is developing additional safeguards. It added that the NFL declined an agreement with the CFTC to cooperate and share information on market integrity.

“That contradiction deserves an explanation,” the group wrote.

As reported by Yogonet International, the brief referenced comments the NFL submitted in May and July, arguing that the Commission and market operators had not implemented core aspects of those proposals.

The Open Question for Uniform Standards

The Supreme Court’s potential intervention could establish clear boundaries between CFTC derivatives oversight and state gambling authority before billions more flow through these markets in 2027. Without resolution, the existing circuit split leaves operators and leagues exposed to inconsistent rules on integrity monitoring and consumer safeguards.

Reporting: Yogonet International

Generated by SCCG’s automated editorial system from published source reporting. SCCG Management holds editorial responsibility.