CFTC proposes first federal regulations for sports gambling on prediction markets

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission just made the most consequential move in the short but turbulent history of prediction markets. On June 10, the agency proposed the first comprehensive federal regulations for event contracts traded on registered prediction market platforms, a category that very much includes sports gambling.

What the rules actually say

The proposed regulations define exactly which types of sports-related contracts are permissible on CFTC-registered platforms. Contracts can settle on general outcomes, final scores, point spreads, and team statistics. Think “Will the Lakers win Game 7?” or “Will the over/under hit 48.5 in the Super Bowl?”

The CFTC explicitly banned contracts tied to player injuries, war, terrorism, assassinations, and what the agency broadly categorizes as manipulation-prone bets. First-pitch gambling, a niche but growing category in baseball betting circles, also got the axe.

The rules would apply to CFTC-designated contract markets, or DCMs. Kalshi and Polymarket US are both recognized as DCMs, making them the most directly affected platforms.

Why now, and why this version

This isn’t the CFTC’s first attempt at regulating event contracts. Earlier proposals under previous leadership aimed to restrict market operations more aggressively. Those proposals were withdrawn.

The shift in approach traces back to Chairman Michael Selig, who was confirmed in late 2025 and has made innovation in financial markets a stated priority. Under Selig’s leadership, the CFTC has moved from a posture of skepticism to one of structured permissiveness.

Multiple states have pushed back against the CFTC’s authority over event contracts. Litigation in Ohio and Arizona is actively testing whether federal commodity law preempts state gaming regulations. The CFTC is asserting its preemption rights under the Commodity Exchange Act, arguing that these are financial instruments, not casino wagers, and therefore fall under its exclusive jurisdiction.

What this means for investors and traders

A clear federal framework reduces the legal risk for platforms operating across state lines. If the CFTC successfully establishes exclusive federal jurisdiction, the current patchwork of state regulations that directly conflict with platform business models simplifies dramatically.

By defining what is and isn’t permissible, the CFTC is effectively giving platforms a menu. Sports contracts tied to scores, outcomes, and statistics are green-lit.

The state-level litigation hasn’t been resolved. If courts in Ohio, Arizona, or elsewhere rule that the CFTC does not have preemption authority over state gaming laws, these proposed rules could become significantly less powerful.

The banned categories also deserve attention. The definition of “manipulation-prone” is inherently subjective, and platforms will inevitably push the boundaries of what qualifies.

The public comment period on these proposed rules will be the next critical milestone. How the industry responds, and whether the CFTC modifies its approach based on that feedback, will determine whether prediction markets become a regulated pillar of US financial infrastructure or remain stuck in jurisdictional limbo.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.