Opinions are like comments to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on prediction markets: Everybody’s seemingly got one.
- The CFTC received more than 1,000 public comments on proposed rules that would allow many sports prediction markets while setting limits on certain high-risk event contracts.
- A coalition of 44 states urged the CFTC to ban sports prediction markets, while industry groups, DraftKings, and prediction market operators generally supported the framework but called for changes to key definitions.
- Sports leagues, including the NBA, pushed for stronger integrity protections and more control over which markets are offered as the CFTC reviews feedback before issuing final rules.
That’s a joke, and a bad one, but the CFTC appears to have received hundreds of comments on proposed rules that could soon govern sports-related prediction markets.
Many of the comments appear to be from the general public, but there were also submissions from much more invested parties. The window for public comment closed Monday night.
The CFTC, a federal regulator, proposed its prediction market rules in June, which seek to put guidelines in place for, yet still allow, many sports-related event contracts to be offered.
Here's former US Sen. Chris Dodd (of the Dodd-Frank Act) on the CFTC's proposed prediction market rules. He's not a fan:
— Geoff Zochodne (@GeoffZochodne) July 27, 2026
"We did not amend the Commodity Exchange Act to override the established system for states to develop their own policies and laws regulating gaming." pic.twitter.com/W0JoHTznZ2
Those contracts have proved particularly controversial to some state-level lawmakers and regulators, who view the trading of those products as just sports betting by another name. Moreover, since the exchanges are federally regulated, this means there is a de facto version of sports wagering available in most U.S. states.
The claims of angry state lawmakers and regulators are being pushed back on by prediction market operators and the CFTC, which argue federal legislation and regulation preempt state-level enforcement efforts. A growing number of lawsuits have been filed to try to settle the debate.
You can't do that
Unsurprisingly, then, one of the dissenting voices during the CFTC's recent comment period was a group of 44 states that basically asked the CFTC not to allow sports prediction markets at all.
“The Proposed Rule goes beyond the CFTC’s statutory powers, is in tension with the Constitution, and would otherwise be arbitrary and capricious in its current form,” wrote the states, including Ohio, Kentucky, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, and Utah.
“The CFTC should start afresh with its rulemaking and clarify that sports bets and gambling cannot be traded on [designated contract markets] but are instead subject to state law, which is not preempted by the (Commodity Exchange Act),” the states added.
Other interested parties are not buying what the CFTC is selling either, such as former U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd. The longtime Connecticut lawmaker claimed his half-namesake, the Dodd-Frank Act, was not supposed to upend state-level regulation of gambling.
Many critics argue that is exactly what prediction markets are doing. Their "yes/no" style of trading can resemble state-regulated sports wagering, and that has prompted a lot of the litigation.
"The explosion of prediction markets - especially sports wagering and event contracts - represents the type of rampant speculation we sought to prohibit with the Dodd-Frank bill," Dodd wrote.
Enjoying Covers content? Add us as a preferred source on your Google account
Just a few tweaks
Still, there are other, more favorable takes on the CFTC’s proposed rules.
The Coalition for Prediction Markets, for example, an industry group whose members include Kalshi, Robinhood, and Underdog, commended the CFTC for "confirming" that its rules around what contracts are allowed “is not a per se prohibition but a discretionary framework requiring a contract-specific public interest determination.”
Key to those rules is how the CFTC defines “gaming,” which the commission proposes to include sporting events without necessarily forbidding contracts tied to those events.
“Within gaming, the Commission aims to permit contracts settled on aggregate sports outcomes with objective data and integrity infrastructure, while prohibiting pure‑chance games and high‑risk sports‑adjacent designs (e.g., injury, officiating‑only, discrete actions, altercations, pre‑collegiate events),” the proposed rulemaking document said.
Yet the gaming definition is something the coalition wants to see tweaked further.
“The Coalition respectfully urges the Commission to revise the proposed definition of ‘gaming’ or, at minimum, to provide additional clarity regarding how that definition will operate in practice,” the group’s submission to the CFTC said.
Don't hold it against us
Another, newer player in the prediction market space, albeit one with longer ties to online sports betting in the U.S., was supportive of the bones of the rule but not necessarily all of what the CFTC aims to do.
DraftKings wrote in its submission to the CFTC that it “supports the Proposed Rule’s core architecture and urges targeted revisions to make the final rule more precise, administrable, and tied to actual integrity risk.”
Among other things, DraftKings argued the CFTC should not define “gaming” to include sporting events. And, if it does, the Boston-based company says “that classification should only trigger the public-interest inquiry and should carry no adverse presumption.”
The NCAA's submission to the CFTC on the agency's proposed prediction market rules includes a request to ban "individual student-athlete event contracts."
— Geoff Zochodne (@GeoffZochodne) July 28, 2026
In other words, no college player props via PMs, an ask the NCAA has made of state-regulated sportsbooks as well. pic.twitter.com/GpfQS3mz8n
There were comments from the leagues, too. The NBA, for instance, bemoaned the fact that the proposed rules “did not incorporate many of the integrity-related protections and requirements” that the league previously recommended.
The professional basketball league also wants a certain degree of control over whatever is being offered to traders.
“With respect to new markets in particular, we continue to believe that leagues are best positioned to determine which markets pose outsized integrity risks or are susceptible to manipulation,” the NBA’s submission said. “Accordingly, we believe that leagues should have control over the types of markets offered on their competitions and businesses.”
The CFTC must now sift through all the comments and weigh what’s been said against what’s already been proposed. Then, a final rule could be published and could take effect two months after.
This ain't over (maybe)
Yet there is apparently a bit of disagreement on how much the CFTC can do.
The 44-state coalition even questioned in a footnote if the CFTC is allowed to take a “final agency action” with just the one commissioner it currently has, Chairman Michael Selig. In other words, even a “final” rule may not be the end of the story.
“Although the [Commodity Exchange Act] has an unusual vacancy provision (‘[a] vacancy … shall not impair the right of the remaining Commissioners to exercise all the powers of the Commission[,]’), the statute seemingly requires multiple remaining 'Commissioners' for the CFTC to function,” the states wrote.
