According to a single source, as the case surrounding the jurisdiction over prediction market regulation approaches the threshold for review by the Supreme Court, the NFL quietly submitted an amicus brief around October 8, drawing this originally financial regulatory dispute into the narrative framework of the most watched sports league in the United States confronting Washington institutions. In the brief, the NFL explicitly opposes the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) having exclusive federal regulatory authority over prediction markets, including Kalshi, arguing that sports prediction contracts relating to game outcomes and player performance should essentially be classified as gambling rather than financial swaps, and thus governed by state and tribal gaming regulatory bodies rather than being included in the federal financial regulatory path constructed by the CFTC. The crux of the dispute is thus accurately condensed into one sentence: whether sports prediction contracts on platforms like Kalshi are state-defined "bets" or "swaps" under federal financial law, and who has the authority to decide. The NFL is not making abstract statements; according to the same source, on the first Sunday of this season, prediction market transactions amounted to about $3.3 billion, of which nearly $2 billion are linked to NFL events, indicating that the question of regulatory jurisdiction is not merely a legal argument but directly impacts a market ecosystem already deeply tied to the league's economic interests, making any subsequent ruling by the Supreme Court a significant redrawing of the boundaries between sports events, prediction platforms, and federal-state regulatory demarcation.

Sports leagues align with state regulation

In this regulatory dispute sparked by Kalshi, the NFL's amicus brief signifies an open choice of sides: it does not stand with the familiar Washington financial regulatory system but rather positions itself with the New Jersey regulatory bodies and local gaming regulators. The NFL clearly supports New Jersey's lawsuit against Kalshi, arguing that these sports contracts designed around game outcomes are essentially gambling rather than “swaps” as described by the CFTC, and thus should revert to the licensing framework and risk control logic of state and tribal regulatory bodies, rather than being uniformly placed under the federal financial derivatives regulatory track.

This position is not an abstract legal contention but stems from the NFL's long-held vigilance toward gambling compliance. According to the same source, the league mentioned in the brief that it had previously raised concerns about gambling compliance with the CFTC but received no effective response, leading to a transformation of this communication failure into a challenge to the "exclusive federal regulation" model in the NFL's narrative: if the agency holding ultimate authority is neither familiar with the sports betting landscape nor responsive to the concerns of stakeholders, then allowing it to monopolize prediction market regulation will only increase compliance and reputational risks. Thus, the NFL simply wrote its regulatory preference into the Supreme Court's case files, publicly advocating for state and tribal regulators familiar with gaming operations to oversee these sports prediction contracts. This move has formally pulled traditional sports leagues, which have previously appeared around crypto prediction markets primarily through commercial cooperation and sponsorship, into the judicial battlefield revolving around platform boundaries, regulatory jurisdiction, and product classification, making sports IP holders themselves a key variable in the future recalibration of compliance.

Gambling or swaps: the qualitative battle over sports contracts

The litigation surrounding Kalshi's sports prediction contracts hinges on a single label: is this a wager or a financial swap? According to the CFTC, if these contracts are considered swaps, they are drawn into the federal financial derivatives regulatory logic, requiring the platform to face a unified and centralized licensing path, stricter risk management, and transaction reporting requirements, making them more easily classified under the framework of financial services and capital markets. Conversely, the NFL insists on a different narrative in its brief to the Supreme Court: that sports prediction contracts are essentially gambling and should return to the traditional model controlled by state gaming regulatory bodies and tribal regulators for licensing, taxation, and setting betting limits and responsible gambling rules—decisions about whether these contracts can be launched locally and in what form should be made jointly by local governments and relevant stakeholders.

This qualitative battle directly places Kalshi and the named Polymarket at the forefront of product boundaries. If the Supreme Court ultimately accepts the "swap" argument, a unified national licensing path may render interstate sports contracts more compliant, but the platforms would have to design contract structures, user access, and tax disclosures according to financial swap compliance standards, thoroughly treating themselves as participants in federally governed financial markets. Conversely, if the "gambling" path advocated by the NFL prevails, platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket would face fragmented state approvals, breaking down sports contracts into business units that operate under state and tribal licenses, potentially granting sports leagues and local regulatory bodies factual veto power over whether specific contracts can be issued, meaning that future product innovation and expansion in prediction markets must be realigned around the preliminary classification of "whether sports contracts are gambling or swaps."

Old Washington players enter, intensifying power struggle

During the same week that sports leagues and state and tribal regulators attempted to pull sports contracts back to the "gambling" track, a variety of parties including former regulatory officials Gary Gensler and former Senator Chris Dodd submitted related briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court, pushing the regulatory conflict initially handled at administrative and state court levels directly into the highest tier of the federal judicial system. More subtly, it was Chris Dodd who years ago drove through a key piece of federal legislation, which the CFTC has used as one of the legal bases for claiming final regulatory authority over prediction markets; now this former legislative advocate appears in the Supreme Court case files, adding political color to the entire struggle framed as "defending the old order or loosening the new boundaries."

Currently, public information has yet to disclose the specific content and positions of Gensler and Dodd's briefs, but together with the NFL and New Jersey regulatory bodies, they present the dispute over the qualitative nature of Kalshi's sports contracts as a constitutional issue regarding whether federal regulatory authority should supersede state gaming rights. The case is viewed as potentially entering the final judgment stage in the Supreme Court, with federal regulators, state regulators, sports leagues, and old Washington officials all present, indicating that the power struggle in prediction markets has progressed beyond licensing approvals and rule interpretations, moving towards a judicial conclusion where the Supreme Court will delineate the final boundaries on "gambling or swaps" and "federal or state", requiring all platforms and users to prepare for a potentially entirely new regulatory landscape during this period of uncertainty.

Kalshi and Polymarket's licensing crossroads

In the legal conclusion driven by "gambling or swaps" and "federal or state," Kalshi and Polymarket are positioned on the same regulatory coordinate axis: both design prediction contracts based on specific events, and this model naturally falls within the CFTC's claimed scope of federal financial regulation while also touching on the gambling boundaries highlighted by the NFL that are controlled by state and tribal regulatory bodies. The difference is that Kalshi's sports prediction contract has been directly sued by the New Jersey regulatory body and placed at the center of the dispute; Polymarket, on the other hand, has been repeatedly named in related reports and briefs, more appearing as a "similar platform" in the backdrop of this power struggle.

If the Supreme Court ultimately supports the NFL and the state regulators, it would weaken the CFTC's exclusive federal path over sports prediction contracts, forcing Kalshi's compliance narrative built around federal financial licensing to be rewritten, with sports-related products needing to face fragmented approvals and gambling rules from state and tribal regulators, meaning that federal one-stop regulation is no longer the only answer. For Polymarket, such a ruling would likewise reshape its compliance space: one being the federal financial regulatory path centered on the CFTC, and the other being a multilayered regulatory network woven by state gaming licenses, requiring the platform to make clearer stances in product structure, target audience, and geographical strategies. Over a longer time horizon, the prediction market will form a hard fork between "federal financial licenses" and "state gaming licenses"—choosing the former means accepting a unified but potentially tighter financial contract framework, while opting for the latter means navigating the differentiated gambling red lines across different states, leading to ongoing licensing costs for platforms and fluctuating access, contract validity, and exit risks for users, with the true suspense lying in which regulatory world will ultimately formally adopt and stabilize recognition of event contracts.

Regulatory vacuum before the Supreme Court's decision

Before the Supreme Court makes a final ruling on the case of New Jersey regulators suing Kalshi, prediction markets are effectively suspended between two regulatory narratives at the federal and state levels: on one side, the CFTC cites federal legislation pushed by Chris Dodd years ago, claiming federal-level regulatory authority over prediction markets; on the other side, state and tribal regulators, represented by New Jersey, view sports prediction contracts as gambling activities that should be governed by local gaming regulatory frameworks. The NFL has submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court requesting the case's acceptance and a redefinition of the CFTC's exclusive regulatory boundaries, indicating that before the ruling arrives, platforms and users cannot determine which set of rules will ultimately prevail, while also facing the dual risk of potentially overlapping or even conflicting federal financial regulation and state gaming regulation.

This regulatory vacuum is not a "static state," but points toward a compliance boundary that will inevitably be redrawn: if the Supreme Court chooses to side with the CFTC, sports prediction contracts are more likely to be incorporated into a unified federal financial contract framework, and platforms like Kalshi will develop compliance paths oriented around federal financial licenses and swap regulation; conversely, if the ruling aligns closer to the NFL and New Jersey's positions, event contracts may need to adapt state by state under state gaming rules, similar platforms like Polymarket must also reassess how their business can operate in different states. For platforms and users alike, the greatest uncertainty at this stage lies in the licensing type and contract classification still not being locked in: the legality of existing contracts could be retrospectively challenged at any time, and future business structures can only adjust rapidly within a limited time window in line with the Supreme Court's ruling. This period of regulatory vacuum represents a high-pressure zone for risk accumulation and serves as a brief buffer before the rules governing U.S. prediction markets are completely rewritten.

Join our community to discuss together and become stronger!
Exclusive Hyperliquid benefits for AiCoin: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive Aster benefits for AiCoin: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。