Some of the most powerful organisations in American sport have submitted a unified message to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC): prediction markets tied to sports events carry the same integrity risks as traditional sports betting — and must be regulated accordingly. The NBA, MLB, PGA TOUR, ATP Tour, and a coalition of major players’ unions have all filed public comment submissions as part of the CFTC’s ongoing review of prediction market regulation, calling for stricter controls, greater league involvement, and stronger protections for athletes.
Table of Contents
Players’ unions: a safety and labour issue
A joint submission from the NFLPA, NBPA, MLBPA, NHLPA and MLSPA frames the issue squarely around athlete welfare. The unions argue that the expansion of sports betting has already led to a documented increase in harassment of players and their families — and that unregulated prediction market contracts risk amplifying that problem further.
From a fan’s perspective, the unions argue, there is little practical distinction between a bet placed on a traditional sportsbook and a prediction market contract. The behaviours that follow — including abuse and threats directed at players — are the same regardless of which platform was used.
The joint submission calls for a ban on contracts tied to negative outcomes such as injuries and penalties — events that a single player could potentially influence. It also calls for restrictions on markets linked to broadcast language or novel contract types, prohibitions on the use of biometric and health data, and enforceable fan conduct policies. Athletes should also have due-process rights in any integrity investigations, the unions argue, along with equal access to information shared between leagues, regulators and market operators.
The NBA’s detailed blueprint
The NBA’s submission is among the most comprehensive filed, covering both market structure and regulatory design in considerable depth. The league argues for sports betting-style regulation across the board — including strict identity verification requirements — pointing to concerns that certain blockchain-based prediction market platforms lack comparable KYC systems, creating significant integrity challenges.
The NBA is calling for athletes, officials and team personnel to be blocked from trading on league-related contracts; a minimum participation age of 21; real-time reporting of suspicious or prohibited trades; and mandatory data-sharing between exchanges and leagues. The league also urges limits or outright bans on categories considered highly susceptible to manipulation, including player prop markets, injury- or officiating-related contracts, and markets tied to developmental leagues such as the G League.
Perhaps most significantly, the NBA argues that leagues should play a central role in determining which markets are permitted to operate — a position that would give sports organisations formal gatekeeping authority over prediction market products.
The submission arrives amid reports that the NBA is simultaneously accelerating partnership talks with Kalshi and Polymarket — suggesting the league is pursuing both regulatory influence and commercial opportunity in parallel.
Common ground across all submissions
Despite coming from different organisations with different priorities, the submissions share a consistent set of themes. All agree that prediction markets present integrity risks comparable to sports betting, require robust identity verification, should rely exclusively on official league data, and need stronger consumer and athlete protections. Multiple submissions also criticise the CFTC’s current self-certification framework as insufficient for sports-related contracts, calling for stricter oversight and potentially pre-approval requirements.
The overarching message from the sports world is clear: prediction markets have grown large enough and influential enough that voluntary compliance and self-regulation are no longer adequate. The leagues and players’ associations want a formal seat at the table — from market approval through to data access and integrity enforcement — and they are making that case directly to the federal regulator now tasked with deciding what that table looks like.
