The NCAA formally asked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on January 14, 2026, to suspend college-sports prediction markets, arguing they function as unregulated sports wagering and create acute risks for student-athletes. The request emphasized gaps around age limits, advertising guardrails, and integrity protections as factors that can escalate coercion, harassment, and potential competition manipulation.
In the NCAA’s view, platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket illustrate a structural loophole, where event contracts can be offered nationwide under federal commodities law while sidestepping state betting regimes. That nationwide reach, the organization argued, makes the risk profile meaningfully different from state-regulated wagering frameworks.
NCAA urges federal agency to suspend college sport prediction markets. https://t.co/TAheMTwXhw
— NCAA News (@NCAA_PR) January 14, 2026
Why the NCAA is pressing for a pause
The NCAA framed the issue as a jurisdictional mismatch: prediction markets rely on the CFTC’s commodities authority to operate across state lines, creating a national footprint that state regulators and gaming groups say circumvents local gambling rules. More than 30 state attorneys general issued cease-and-desist letters to platforms such as Kalshi, while the American Gaming Association and the Indian Gaming Association urged Congress to tighten rules or prohibit sports-related contracts in forthcoming legislation.
That dynamic places the CFTC at the center of an increasingly politicized policy debate, with enforcement posture shaped by litigation risk and the prospect of Congressional direction. CFTC Chairman Michael Selig has signaled he will track pending litigation and Congressional signals, and the NCAA’s letter to Selig specifically asked the commission to pause college-related contracts while policymakers evaluate a uniform framework.
The NCAA anchored its argument in athlete-protection priorities, warning that game-outcome, spread, and player-level contracts can intensify pressure on amateur participants. NCAA President Charlie Baker said these contracts are “functionally indistinguishable from traditional sports wagering,” and the NCAA argued they can be more hazardous because they often allow participation by 18-year-olds—below the 21-and-over standard used by many state betting regimes.
Beyond eligibility and integrity, the NCAA highlighted direct welfare concerns tied to athlete targeting, pointing to a November 2025 study in which 36% of Division I men’s basketball players reported sports-betting–related social-media abuse. The organization also referenced past cases where student-athletes were ruled ineligible for manipulative conduct or impermissible betting, positioning prediction markets as an additional vector that could magnify those harms.
Market convergence and the regulatory fork in the road
The NCAA also noted a commercial convergence: major sportsbooks and fantasy operators are entering prediction markets, which may expand liquidity and visibility while increasing overlap with regulated betting products. From a risk-management standpoint, that can deepen markets—but it also expands the pool of participants exposed to underage access or weakly supervised wagering activity.
Classification remains the core legal battleground, with states seeking to treat these platforms as gambling services while operators cite federal commodity-law coverage. The outcome will determine whether platforms maintain national marketplaces or are forced into state-by-state segmentation with betting-style controls.
For investors, exchanges, and compliance teams, the near-term watchpoints are CFTC guidance and Congressional movement, because a pause or statutory change would likely compress liquidity while a permissive stance could prolong state-level enforcement and litigation. Either path will shape how quickly prediction markets scale and whether they adopt stricter age verification, advertising limits, and integrity monitoring akin to traditional sports betting.