Major sports leagues are not aligned on prediction markets, and new filings with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission lay out just how wide that divide has become.
The MLB, NBA, and NCAA each submitted comments ahead of Thursday’s deadline for the agency’s forthcoming rules, outlining how sports event contracts should be regulated. A lobbying firm representing players associations also weighed in, while the NFL and NHL declined to comment.
Here’s where every major sports league stands on prediction markets as more than 20 lawsuits and enforcement actions play out nationwide.
NBA pushes for control, evolves stance
The NBA used its filing to lay out one of the most detailed proposed regulatory frameworks of any league, calling for age limits, identity verification, real-time data sharing, and formal league input into which markets can be offered.
The league did not take a position on whether prediction markets constitute gambling, but said they raise “integrity concerns” similar to sports betting and should be regulated accordingly.
Among its specific requests:
- Raise the minimum trading age to 21.
- Require robust know-your-customer systems to prevent anonymous trading.
- Mandate immediate reporting of suspicious activity.
- Ensure exchanges cooperate directly with league-led investigations.
The filing urges regulators to give leagues a formal role in shaping market design, including the ability to block contracts that conflict with league integrity standards. It specifically pushed for restrictions on contracts tied to injuries, discipline, transactions, and, at least in the near term, player prop-style markets.
The league initially framed prediction markets as a novel product with unclear implications, but its stance has since shifted in a way not dissimilar to how its relationship with sports betting evolved as it became regulated and a meaningful revenue stream.
Commissioner Adam Silver has called the products “essentially” the same as sports betting, as the league explores potential partnerships with predictions platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket, who maintain they are not gambling.
NFL passes on prediction market input
The NFL did not submit a comment, a notable absence given its public skepticism.
In congressional testimony last year, league executive Jeff Miller warned that sports event contracts were already being offered in states without legal sports betting, arguing they fall outside existing safeguards for sports betting.
Ahead of last season the NFL updated its gambling policy to apply the same prohibitions used for sports betting to prediction markets, barring players, coaches, and personnel from participating. Unlike the NBA, which has allowed limited investment in the space, the NFL has also restricted players from holding financial stakes in related companies and moved to block prediction market advertising, including high-profile placements such as the Super Bowl.
The league sent letters to prediction market operators in March objecting to certain contracts, including those tied to injuries, officiating decisions, and other outcomes it views as susceptible to manipulation or misuse of non-public information.
MLB aligns with CFTC, prediction markets
Unlike the NFL, which has pressed its concerns outside the rulemaking process, MLB has moved to work directly with federal regulators.
The league entered a memorandum of understanding with the CFTC in March that establishes a framework for collaboration, including information sharing and integrity monitoring.
“DCMs should be establishing information-sharing agreements with leagues themselves, not just third-party integrity monitoring organizations,” the MLB wrote in its formal comment.
Among its key proposals:
- League consultation: Exchanges should engage with leagues before listing contracts and avoid markets identified as susceptible to manipulation or unfair trading practices.
- Market controls: Regulators should allow position limits or restrictions when a full ban is not necessary.
- Information sharing: Exchanges should establish direct agreements with leagues and provide transaction-level data upon request.
- Integrity enforcement: Platforms should report suspicious trading and cooperate with league-led investigations.
- Official data: Contracts should rely on league-verified data to protect integrity and consumer trust.
As the MLB positions itself to shape how operators offer markets on its sport, the approach mirrors its path with sports betting, where early integrity concerns evolved into data deals and commercial partnerships. The league partnered with Polymarket earlier this year as it pushes for formalized data sharing and more oversight.
The NHL was the first major league to partner with either Kalshi or Polymarket, though it did not submit a comment in the current rulemaking process.
NCAA concerned with prediction markets
The NCAA took the most aggressive stance of any major sports body, reiterating its call to suspend college-related prediction markets while outlining a framework focused on athlete protection.
In its filing, the NCAA warned that sports event contracts pose risks unique to college athletics, including harassment of student-athletes, exposure among younger users, and misuse of non-public information.
Among its key proposals:
- Market restrictions: Ban player prop-style contracts and other markets tied to individual athlete performance.
- Age limits: Raise the minimum trading age to 21.
- Data access: Require platforms to provide account-level, geolocation, and transaction data to support integrity investigations.
- Advertising limits: Restrict promotion of prediction markets tied to name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals.
Any framework must “protect and safeguard the well-being of student-athletes,” the organization said, a position Charlie Baker has reinforced publicly, including in response to a move to list transfer portal markets. He has pointed to enforcement cases tied to prop-style betting, including point-shaving investigations, and what he described as “thousands and thousands” of abusive messages directed at athletes, coaches, and officials.
He escalated those concerns during March Madness, warning that prediction market operators “have much more to do” on integrity and signaling the NCAA may pursue additional action if federal regulators fall short.
Players associations chime in
Elevate Government Affairs, on behalf of the National Football League Players Association, National Basketball Players Association, and Major League Baseball Players Association, warned prediction markets could create new risks for athletes.
It raised concerns about how the products affect players beyond traditional integrity issues, including harassment, privacy exposure, and the use of non-public information. It pointed to the nationwide availability of prediction markets for users as young as 18 as a key difference from regulated sportsbooks, arguing that the structure could increase pressure on athletes without the same safeguards.
The group also called out markets tied to individual performance or outcomes that rely on player-related information and called for stronger protections around player data and privacy as the products expand.
That differs from leagues focusing on partnerships and new revenue streams before the CFTC formally address those concerns. It is unclear how any of that revenue would be shared with players, especially if the products are treated as financial instruments rather than gambling.
