【relogio cassino】CFTC prediction markets feedback shows fractured approach

In recent months, despite having first been discussed in earnest over a decade ago, there has been a surge of interest and controversy surrounding sports prediction markets in the US.

These platforms — where participants trade contracts on the outcomes of sporting events — are at the centre of a legal and regulatory storm that remains far from settled.

While the CFTC has scheduled a roundtable to clarify the situation, comments received during its request for input show that the issue is more complex and divisive than many anticipated.

The roundtable is schedule to be held on 30 April.

Sports prediction markets allow participants to buy and sell contracts based on the outcomes of sporting events, such as who will win a game or how many points a player might score.

These contracts typically function in a similar way to futures or options in financial markets, but are tied to real-world sports outcomes.

Platforms like PredictIt and Kalshi have drawn public and political attention for offering such markets, with others like BetEx pushing for a more regulated and transparent derivative-style framework for trading legally placed sports bets.

Supporters argue these markets promote price discovery, offer hedging tools, and engage consumers in novel ways.

Critics, however, see them as sports betting under a different name — subject to the same risks and, therefore, deserving of the same strict oversight.

Legal grey area and state-level backlash

The legal status of sports prediction markets is murky. At the federal level, the CFTC has authority over futures and derivatives markets, but gambling regulation has historically been a state-level matter.

States including Nevada, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have been particularly vocal in asserting their regulatory domain.

In fact, several states are moving to block aspects of these markets, concerned that they create a backdoor for sports betting without complying with local gambling laws.

Congresswoman Dina Titus of Nevada highlighted this in her comment to the CFTC, warning that sports prediction markets could undermine state authority.

She emphasised that permitting sports-related event contracts through prediction markets could circumvent established state-level rules around consumer protection, taxation, and responsible gaming.

Titus also criticised platforms for promoting their offerings as betting products, despite making claims to the contrary.

A particularly strong opposition comes from tribal governments.

The Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations (TASIN) argues that sports prediction markets threaten to erode tribal sovereignty and the financial foundation built through tribal-state gaming compacts.

These compacts often provide tribes with exclusive rights to offer Class III gaming, including sports betting, in exchange for revenue-sharing agreements with states.

TASIN’s submission to the CFTC, which is leaning toward allowing the markets, emphasised that sports event contracts constitute Class III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) and should be regulated accordingly — not as financial derivatives.

They warned that these markets violate the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), exploit legal loopholes, and siphon revenues from state and tribal governments without contributing to public welfare or addressing gambling addiction risks.

Industry perspectives: Innovation vs. Integrity

Not all feedback to the CFTC has been oppositional. Some companies see these markets as a means to modernise sports engagement through financial technology.

BetEx, for example, proposes a model where legally placed wagers at sportsbooks become tradable derivatives.

The company argues this enhances market liquidity and transparency without replacing state oversight, since the original bets still comply with local laws.

Similarly, GeoComply — a company that provides compliance and geolocation technology — advocated for harmonising federal and state frameworks.

It emphasised that clear regulatory boundaries are essential to avoid consumer confusion and maintain the integrity of existing sports betting ecosystems.

However, even stakeholders supportive of innovation acknowledge the challenges. MLB, while not opposed to all forms of prediction markets, voiced concern that such contracts lack the integrity safeguards currently enforced by state regulators and sports leagues.

MLB emphasised the need for data-sharing, integrity monitoring, and regulatory cooperation if sports prediction markets are to coexist with traditional sports betting.

However, that might not be possible given the current legal framework within which the CFTC operates.

It said in its feedback that it had been advised that “some exchanges and brokers take the position that they are not even permitted to share information with MLB under current CFTC regulations.”

A crime against the Constitution?

Florida State University Professor Ryan M. Rodenberg, PhD, has also provided feedback. He has been involved extensively in the research behind betting for decades and testified before the Supreme Court on PASPA.

The sports prediction market debate is more than a yes or no question with regards to its links to the sports betting market.

According to Rodenberg, there are “potential antitrust concerns and constitutional issues under the Intellectual Property Clause, Tenth Amendment, and First Amendment” that must be considered, as well.

Adding another dimension to the debate, Yield Sec — a technology firm specialising in online marketplace monitoring — warned the CFTC that prediction markets are currently being exploited by illegal gambling networks.

It argued that these markets attract bad actors who operate outside US laws, targeting vulnerable consumers through social media, streaming platforms, and crypto ecosystems.

According to Yield Sec, failure to proactively address these risks could deepen the infiltration of organised crime into both the financial and gambling sectors.

The CFTC’s upcoming roundtable promises to be a high-stakes gathering of federal regulators, state officials, tribal representatives, academics, and industry innovators.

However, the feedback so far makes one thing clear: there is no consensus on the legality, function, or future of sports prediction markets in the US.