The NFL has renewed its call for prediction-market operators to remove contracts it believes could threaten sporting integrity. The request focuses on markets involving player availability, injuries, misconduct, officiating and single-play outcomes. It adds further pressure to an industry already facing uncertainty over how sports-event contracts should be regulated in the United States.
The NFL’s intervention is a renewed request, not a binding prohibition imposed on prediction-market operators.
According to an ABC News report based on the NFL’s latest letter, the league wants exchanges to “prohibit offering objectionable bets that threaten the integrity of our games.”
The targeted contracts include player injuries and availability, misconduct, fan safety, officiating, broadcast mentions, celebrity attendance and outcomes that can be controlled by a single person.
The complete letter has not been published publicly.
The request follows an earlier intervention reported by ESPN in March 2026, when the NFL first asked operators including Kalshi and Polymarket to refrain from offering contracts that could be easily manipulated or determined in advance.
The NFL’s concern is not primarily directed at standard contracts on which team will win a game or championship. Its attention is on narrower markets that may create greater opportunities for manipulation, misuse of non-public information or inappropriate pressure on individual participants.
Examples include whether a kicker will miss a field goal, a quarterback’s first pass will be incomplete, a receiver’s first target will be incomplete or a running back will gain fewer than a specified number of yards on a first attempt. Each contract can be settled by one action involving a limited number of people.
Such markets may offer frequent engagement, but their specificity also raises integrity concerns. A full-game result reflects many decisions and performances. A contract based on one action may be easier to influence or may create the perception that a player has an incentive to affect the outcome.
According to ABC News, the league expressed the risk directly in its latest letter:
Continuing to list these objectionable contracts threatens the underlying integrity of our games.
Injury and availability contracts raise a different concern. Teams, medical staff, players and their representatives may know whether an athlete is likely to compete before that information becomes public. Trading on a player’s participation or return from injury could therefore reward access to confidential information rather than public analysis.
NFL executive vice president Jeff Miller highlighted this issue in comments reported by ESPN, saying:
We’re trying to stay as far as we can from some of those sorts of inside information wagers.
Player welfare is also relevant. Injury updates already attract significant attention, particularly before high-profile games. Turning a player’s health or absence into a directly tradeable outcome could increase pressure on athletes and medical staff while encouraging speculation about sensitive information.
The league is seeking restrictions on contracts involving the timing, number or type of penalties, officiating actions, replay results and referee assignments. A single decision could determine the settlement of a narrowly designed contract, even when it has little effect on the final result of the game.
Markets linked to flags or replay reviews could also intensify suspicion around officials. For a league whose commercial value depends on confidence in fair competition, the perception that refereeing decisions have become individual betting events may itself represent a risk.
The NFL’s position is that sports leagues are particularly well placed to identify contracts susceptible to manipulation. ESPN reported that CFTC Chair Michael Selig similarly acknowledged the leagues’ expertise, saying the regulator would evaluate the risks when a league identifies a contract as readily manipulable.
The dispute forms part of the wider discussion around the CFTC’s proposed prediction-market framework. That framework considers whether certain event contracts are contrary to the public interest and whether they create risks involving manipulation, settlement integrity or material non-public information.
Prediction-market operators generally describe their products as federally regulated financial contracts rather than sportsbook wagers. The NFL characterises the disputed contracts as bets and argues that sports markets require safeguards reflecting the expertise of leagues and integrity-monitoring bodies.
That disagreement is also central to New Jersey’s request for Supreme Court review. The case could help determine whether federally registered exchanges can offer sports contracts without complying with state gambling requirements covering licensing, age limits, geolocation and consumer protection.
The concern is not confined to the United States. A joint warning from European gambling regulators has similarly raised questions about insider information, manipulation, consumer safeguards and prediction markets operating without appropriate national licences.
The ABC News report said it had requested comments from Kalshi and Polymarket but did not include responses from either company.
The earlier ESPN report provides additional context. Polymarket said it welcomed opportunities to work with sports leagues to protect game integrity and the overall fan experience, while Kalshi declined to comment.
These responses related to the NFL’s earlier request rather than its latest letter, so they should not be interpreted as direct reactions to the renewed intervention.
The NFL’s letter does not force operators to remove the disputed contracts. Any changes will depend on decisions by individual exchanges, future CFTC rules, and the outcome of ongoing legal disputes.
For now, the renewed request shows that leagues are likely to keep pressing for a clear distinction between broad game-outcome markets and highly specific contracts that may be easier to influence, exploit or perceive as unfair. It also demonstrates that the debate is moving beyond whether sports contracts should exist and toward which types of contracts can be offered without creating unacceptable integrity risks.
