The National Football League (NFL) has urged the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to enhance its proposed regulations for prediction markets. The league expresses concerns that the current framework inadequately addresses issues such as manipulation, insider trading, and risks to consumers associated with sports contracts.
In a letter dated July 27 to CFTC Chairman Michael Selig, Brendon Plack, the NFL's Senior Vice President of Public Policy and Government Affairs, acknowledged that some of the league's earlier suggestions had been incorporated into the proposals. However, he emphasized that the proposed rules need significant improvements.
“While the Proposed Prediction Market Rulemaking contains several productive proposals, it must be strengthened in key areas,” Plack stated, noting that the draft fails to sufficiently protect the integrity of sports events and the fans engaged in these markets.
Plack expressed surprise that several sensible integrity and consumer protection measures from prior league comments were not adopted in the new proposals.
The NFL is advocating for a ban on contracts that are easily manipulable by individuals or that rely on unpredictable factors such as injuries, officiating decisions, or misconduct. Additionally, the league seeks to prohibit markets based on information that could be known beforehand, such as the first play of a game, roster decisions, coaching strategies, player trades, and draft choices.
For contracts related to player performance and other markets deemed susceptible to manipulation, the NFL proposed a preapproval process that would allow sports governing bodies to raise objections before trading commences.
The league also criticized the CFTC's suggestion of a 10-day period for reviewing newly listed contracts, arguing that integrity issues may not be immediately visible and questioning the adequacy of regulatory staffing to keep up with the rapidly expanding market.
According to the filing, the average daily number of event contracts on a major market surged from approximately 1,600 in April 2025 to 162,000 in April 2026. As of May, over 8,000 distinct contracts were being traded across 25 designated contract markets.
The NFL has requested a formal mechanism for emergency reviews and suspensions when credible evidence of manipulation, match-fixing, or misuse of confidential information arises. It also seeks to establish league-specific lists of individuals barred from trading, including employees and those with access to sensitive nonpublic information.
Additional proposals include setting a minimum trading age of 21, creating a centralized self-exclusion system, and implementing deposit and loss limits, cooldown periods, account activity summaries, and risk notifications. Currently, platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket allow users aged 18 and older, while most states with legal sports betting require participants to be at least 21.
The NFL has also called for restrictions on advertising, margin trading, and the unauthorized use of league or team branding. It emphasizes the need for reliable data sources for settling sports contracts and stronger oversight involving the CFTC, state regulators, sports leagues, and integrity organizations.
While the league has partnerships with various legal U.S. sportsbook operators, it has yet to collaborate with a prediction market. In contrast, Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League have entered into prediction market agreements, and NBA player Giannis Antetokounmpo was recently announced as an investor in Kalshi.
The CFTC published its proposed amendments in June and opened a 45-day comment period. The proposal marks the agency’s first definition of gaming and solicits feedback on issues such as insider information, margin trading, blockchain-based markets, and public-interest restrictions.
Prediction market operators have shown support for federal oversight, while states, tribal governments, and gambling industry groups have raised concerns that federally regulated sports contracts could undermine state and tribal authority.
Former Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd also opposed the proposal in a separate filing. Dodd, who co-authored the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, argued that the law was designed to restrict dangerous practices.