The NBA, MLB, and several other major sports leagues and players unions submitted critical feedback on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) proposed rules governing prediction markets before the July 27, 2026 deadline. While the CFTC's 267-page framework aims to regulate contracts tied to final outcomes and statistical performances, it also bans more granular bets like in-game props and officiating decisions. Despite these moves, the NBA and MLB argue the proposal lacks sufficient protections related to sports integrity, such as requiring platforms to cooperate fully with league investigations and notify leagues of suspicious trading activities.

The NBA expressed particular dissatisfaction with the proposal’s failure to mandate basic integrity safeguards and to give leagues control over which markets can be offered. It urged that platforms be required to consult with leagues before launching new markets around player props. Additionally, the NBA and NCAA recommended setting a minimum user age of 21 for trading on sports-event contracts, reflecting broader concerns about underage gambling exposure—while some platforms currently allow users as young as 18 to participate.

MLB, which has an exclusive multi-year partnership with the prediction market Polymarket, viewed the CFTC’s actions as a positive start but pressed for stricter rules to curb potentially manipulative markets such as those based on team personnel moves or players’ words during interviews. Like the NBA, MLB emphasized the necessity for mandatory cooperation between platforms and leagues during investigations. Likewise, players unions representing multiple sports voiced strong opposition to markets vulnerable to manipulation by individuals, advocating for outright bans on “mention markets” and player performance under/over bets.

The broader response to the CFTC proposal revealed significant tension between regulators, leagues, platforms, and state authorities. While prediction-market operators like Kalshi and Polymarket praised the framework as thoughtful, a coalition of 44 state attorneys general vehemently opposed it, arguing the rules overreach federal authority and undermine state powers. This ongoing debate underscores the complexity of balancing innovation in sports betting with the integrity and interests of professional and collegiate sports organizations.