Two weeks before kickoff, people weren’t just placing traditional bets on who would win the Super Bowl. They were trading contracts that paid out if the anthem ran longer than a minute and a half, if the first commercial would feature a celebrity, and on dozens of other granular outcomes. What looks like a betting boom is actually a bet-on-everything revolution: prediction markets have quietly become the backdoor that lets Americans wager on sports anywhere in the country.
The players: Kalshi and Polymarket (and a raft of newcomers)
Kalshi and Polymarket—platforms that let users buy and sell outcome-based contracts—have been the most visible names. They present themselves as financial markets rather than bookies: you don’t bet against a house; you trade contracts that resolve to $1 or $0 depending on the result. That framing matters because, in many states where online sports betting is illegal, these markets have exploited legal gaps to operate nationwide. Kalshi alone reportedly handled more than $167 million in Super Bowl–related volume early in the season and could see totals that rival major sportsbooks.
Traditional gambling companies have noticed. FanDuel, DraftKings, Fanatics, PrizePicks and Underdog have all rolled out prediction‑market offerings to extend their reach. For pro gamblers—who care about liquidity, markets they can hedge in, and fewer bet limits—these platforms offer an attractive, fast-moving alternative. Bloomberg and other industry observers have watched professional bettors migrate toward prediction markets in droves as volume and limits swell.
Regulators pivoting, litigation simmering
The regulatory landscape has turned sharply in the past year. Where enforcement once raised alarms about sports and political contracts—leading to actions during the prior administration—the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s new leadership signaled a different tone. CFTC chair Michael Selig announced the agency will step back from a 2024 proposal that would have barred certain political and sports contracts, instead promising to craft rules that permit “lawful innovation” in the space. That shift has opened the door for prediction markets to normalize and grow.
Still: several states have sued Kalshi, arguing that the platforms function as unlicensed sportsbooks that deprive states of tax revenue and consumer protections. The conflict—federal regulator leaning toward permissiveness while states press enforcement—means the legal fight is far from settled. For now, the markets keep trading, and the money keeps flowing.
The NFL’s two‑step: wary testimony, cautious acceptance
The league’s stance has been messy in public. Last December, Jeff Miller, the NFL’s executive vice president for communications, public affairs and policy, told Congress that prediction markets could bypass state guardrails and pose “substantially greater risks to contest integrity.” Yet, in a tone shift captured weeks later, Miller described prediction marketplaces as “innovative” and “dynamic,” acknowledging they’re an engagement tool while emphasizing that the league is watching regulation closely.
Those dueling impulses explain a paradox: team owners and the league earn from legalized gambling—owners may hold small equity stakes in sportsbooks—so what once looked like a threat can also look like revenue. Still, the NFL drew a hard commercial line for this Super Bowl: sources say prediction-market ads were blocked from the broadcast, and the league announced it has no plans to participate in prediction markets while legal and integrity concerns remain unresolved.
Integrity, consumer protection and the social cost
Industry leaders pitch prediction markets as bringing useful information to light—harnessing the “wisdom of crowds.” Newsrooms, financial platforms and even awards shows have started to display market odds alongside reporting. But when the traffic is overwhelmingly sports-focused—estimates put sports trading at more than 90% of Kalshi’s volume—the social utility argument feels thin.
Experts warn of consumer harm. Research on problem gambling ties heavy sports-betting habits to family financial strife, bankruptcy, and increased rates of abuse. And prediction markets currently sit outside many of the consumer protections that state-regulated sportsbooks must follow: mandatory responsible‑gaming measures, contribution to state addiction‑treatment funds, and strict advertising rules in jurisdictions that have legalized betting. Critics say that unleashing a nationwide, lightly regulated market—especially one that actively courts young men—could amplify harm.
How the money changes behavior
Markets respond to incentives. If prediction platforms bring in billions—estimates for the Super Bowl’s total betting pool across venues approached record territory—platform operators, advertisers, and investors will push for access and fewer constraints. That commercial pressure can also change who participates: professional gamblers, hedge funds, and high‑frequency traders can add liquidity and sophistication, but they also raise stakes and make manipulation harder to detect.
Platforms insist they have surveillance and integrity tools. Kalshi has touted in-house monitoring and partnerships with firms that provide integrity services to leagues and sportsbooks. Whether those measures scale alongside explosive growth is unproven.
What this means for fans and the industry
For the average viewer, the rise of prediction markets redraws the gambling map: where geography once limited your ability to legally bet from home, markets now often do not. For the industry, the split between federal encouragement and state resistance points to years of regulatory chess. And for the leagues, prediction markets pose a simultaneous threat and opportunity—an engagement engine that could become a new revenue stream if regulators and legal frameworks line up.
Prediction markets have already started to influence other corners of culture: broadcasters and financial portals pay attention to what markets predict, and gaming culture overlaps—some fans prefer wagering on outcomes to playing video games about the sport. If you’re a console gamer who follows football, the convergence has even bubbled into titles like Madden NFL 26, where realism and betting-fueled narratives cross paths in the fan imagination.
A messy middle, not a tidy ending
There will be no single watershed moment that settles this. Rules will be written and rewritten. Lawsuits will progress. Platforms will lobby, adapt, and innovate. The Super Bowl has simply become a magnifying lens: it reveals how prediction markets can expand access, how regulators are debating the tradeoffs, and how leagues are trying to juggle integrity with commercial interest.
If anything is clear, it’s that prediction markets have moved from niche experiment to mainstream force faster than most institutions could anticipate. Regulators, leagues, and states are now racing to decide who gets to set the boundaries—and whether those boundaries will protect consumers or primarily serve new business models.
The night of the game, as millions watched the play on the field, a parallel market was trading every conceivable outcome. That parallel market may change not just who wins a bet, but how the game itself is governed in the years ahead.
Related reading: see how prediction markets are being woven into finance tools on Google Finance's new prediction‑markets tools and the cultural crossover with games like Madden NFL 26.