The NFL has formally joined New Jersey in its legal fight with Kalshi, filing an amicus brief that asks the US Supreme Court to review whether sports-event contracts offered on prediction markets should be treated as gambling under state law. The league argues that allowing those products to operate outside state gambling rules would weaken consumer protections and create risks for game integrity.

The filing follows months of tensions between the NFL and prediction-market operators, including Kalshi and Polymarket, over which sports-related contracts should be allowed. It also puts the league on a different path from several other major sports organizations that have moved toward partnerships with the same market segment.

A direct challenge to federal preemption claims

In backing New Jersey, the NFL is supporting the state’s position that federal commodities law does not prevent states from regulating sports-event contracts as gambling. That question has become central to the broader dispute over whether prediction-market platforms can offer sports-linked contracts without going through the same legal framework that governs traditional sportsbooks.

The legal picture remains unsettled. Federal appeals courts have already split on the issue: the Third Circuit has backed Kalshi, while the Sixth and Ninth Circuits have sided against it. The NFL’s brief asks the Supreme Court to step in and resolve that conflict.

Months of pressure over contract types

The league’s court filing comes after a lengthy stretch of discussions and public pressure aimed at prediction-market products. In March, the NFL sent letters to operators asking them to block contract types it viewed as especially susceptible to manipulation, including markets tied to player injuries, officiating decisions, and individual plays that a single person could influence.

The NFL then urged the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in May to adopt stronger safeguards. In July, it said the agency’s proposed rules did not match the protections already required of conventional sportsbooks. By September, the league said that contracts it had objected to months earlier were still being listed.

Talks continued, but no deal was reached

Even while raising regulatory objections, the NFL kept open the possibility of doing business with the sector. The league held discussions for months with Kalshi, Polymarket, and the CFTC, and Commissioner Roger Goodell said in a CNBC interview that talks with operators were continuing about changes that could make them potential partners.

No partnership was announced before the season began. The NFL had pointed to inadequate regulation and legal uncertainty as reasons it was not ready to sign an agreement, though the details of those private talks have not been made public. A future deal, if one emerged, could give the league a more direct role in market-integrity monitoring as well as licensing, data, and marketing arrangements.

A split with other leagues and a large market at stake

The NFL’s stance stands out because other leagues have already moved into prediction-market partnerships. The NHL partnered with Kalshi and Polymarket last October. UFC and MLS later signed agreements with Polymarket, and MLB followed in March with a Polymarket partnership alongside a separate agreement with the CFTC focused on market integrity.

By contrast, the NFL has stayed aligned with traditional sportsbook operators, renewing deals with DraftKings and FanDuel and adding Fanatics in August. Those companies also run prediction-market products, underscoring how quickly the category has expanded. According to the NFL, $1.8 billion of the $3.3 billion traded on prediction markets during the season’s opening Sunday involved NFL games, accounting for more than half of that day’s activity.

What comes next

The immediate next step is whether the Supreme Court agrees to review New Jersey’s case. The league’s filing adds weight to the states’ side at a moment when lower courts are divided and the regulatory boundary between gambling law and commodities law remains contested.

The NBA has not yet taken a side on that legal question. Front Office Sports has reported that the league circulated partnership proposals to several operators, but it has also spent more than a year raising concerns similar to the NFL’s and said as recently as July that proposed CFTC rules did not provide basic protections against insider trading and market manipulation. For now, the NBA remains undecided, leaving open whether another major league will join the push for Supreme Court review or continue pressing only for tougher rules.

Source: www.bankless.com