Could Congress ban sports prediction markets? The bills, the hearing and the realistic odds
State-level fights over Kalshi and Polymarket get the headlines, but the states keep losing on preemption. That leaves Congress as the only body that can settle the sports event contract question outright — and in 2026 it started trying.
The timeline
| Date | What happened |
|---|---|
| July 2026 | Sens. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and John Curtis (R-UT) introduce a bipartisan bill to amend the Commodity Exchange Act and bar prediction contracts tied to sports events and casino-style games. |
| July 21, 2026 | Reporting shows prediction market, casino and tribal gaming lobbies all sharply increasing spending. Kalshi alone spends roughly $990,000 in the first half of 2026, close to its entire 2025 total. |
| July 24, 2026 | Reps. Steven Horsford (D-NV) and Mark Amodei (R-NV) unveil the Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act, targeting sports and casino-style event contracts. |
| July 28, 2026 | A 44-state coalition of attorneys general writes to the CFTC arguing the agency lacks authority over sports event contracts. |
| August 2026 | The House Agriculture Subcommittee on Commodity Markets, Digital Assets and Rural Development holds “Examining Customer Protections and Market Integrity in Sports Event Prediction Markets.” Tribal gaming groups press for restrictions; much of the questioning centres on CFTC oversight rather than a ban. |
| August 12, 2026 | No prediction-market bill has passed either chamber. |
The bills actually on the table
The two most serious are structurally identical: both would amend the Commodity Exchange Act to remove sports outcomes from the universe of listable event contracts. That is what separates them from state litigation. A state can only argue that federal preemption does not apply to it; Congress can rewrite the statute that creates the preemption in the first place.
Note the Nevada delegation’s fingerprints on the House bill. Horsford and Amodei represent the one state whose entire regulated gaming economy is directly exposed to an unlicensed federal competitor, and Nevada has already issued Kalshi a cease-and-desist. That tells you where the sponsorship energy comes from, and it is also why the bills read as industry-protective rather than consumer-protective — a framing opponents have used against them.
Why the hearing mattered more than the bills
Hearings signal where a committee intends to land. At the House Agriculture subcommittee session, members spent more time on customer protections, market integrity and whether the CFTC is adequately resourced than on whether sports contracts should exist at all. Several directed questions to witnesses arguing that prediction markets could continue operating with stronger guardrails.
That is the shape of a regulatory compromise, not a prohibition. It matters because House Agriculture holds jurisdiction over the CFTC: any bill to ban sports contracts has to move through the committee that just spent a hearing exploring how to supervise them instead.
What would actually have to happen for a ban
| State | State’s move | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Schiff–Curtis bill (Senate) | Amend the Commodity Exchange Act to bar sports and casino-style event contracts | Introduced; no floor vote |
| Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act (House) | Same core mechanism; sponsored by the Nevada delegation | Introduced; no floor vote |
| House Agriculture subcommittee | Examined customer protections and market integrity in sports event markets | Hearing held; focus on CFTC oversight, not prohibition |
| CFTC rulemaking | Could restrict sports contracts without new legislation | Not initiated; the CFTC is currently defending these markets against states |
| State enforcement | Cease-and-desists, statutory bans, indictments | Repeatedly enjoined on federal preemption grounds |
| 44-state attorneys general letter | Argues the CFTC lacks authority over sports event contracts | Persuasive only; carries no legal force |
Read down that table and the pattern is clear. Every route that could actually stop sports event contracts is either not moving or has already been tried and blocked. The only one with real teeth is an act of Congress, and none of the filed bills has cleared a committee, let alone a chamber.
What it means if you trade these markets
Nothing changes in the near term. No filed bill has passed a chamber, the agency with jurisdiction is in court defending these markets against the states, and the committee of jurisdiction has signalled interest in supervision rather than prohibition.
The scenario worth tracking is not a standalone ban but an attachment. Narrow, industry-backed provisions rarely pass on their own — they pass folded into a larger must-move vehicle. If a sports-contract restriction becomes law in this Congress, the most likely path is a rider on a broader CFTC reauthorisation or appropriations bill, not a floor vote on the Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act.
This is analysis, not legal or betting advice. 18+.
FAQ
- Has Congress banned sports prediction markets?
- No. As of August 12, 2026 no bill restricting sports event contracts has passed either chamber of Congress. Sports contracts remain listable on CFTC-regulated exchanges such as Kalshi.
- What is the Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act?
- A House bill unveiled July 24, 2026 by Reps. Steven Horsford (D-NV) and Mark Amodei (R-NV) that would stop platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket from offering sports and casino-style event contracts. It has been introduced but not voted on.
- What did the House Agriculture hearing conclude?
- The subcommittee hearing, “Examining Customer Protections and Market Integrity in Sports Event Prediction Markets,” did not produce a ban recommendation. Much of the questioning focused on improving CFTC oversight, with several members engaging witnesses who argued the markets could continue under stronger guardrails.
- How many bills target prediction markets?
- At least eight measures restricting companies like Kalshi and Polymarket have been proposed. The most prominent are the bipartisan Schiff–Curtis Senate bill and the Horsford–Amodei House bill, both of which would amend the Commodity Exchange Act.
- Could the CFTC ban sports contracts without Congress?
- In principle it has rulemaking authority, but it has not initiated such a rulemaking. The agency is currently litigating against multiple states to defend its exclusive jurisdiction over these markets, which is the opposite posture.
- What is the most likely route to a federal restriction?
- A rider attached to a larger must-move vehicle such as a CFTC reauthorisation or appropriations bill, rather than a standalone floor vote. Narrow industry-backed provisions rarely pass on their own.
Sources
- NBC News — Senators introduce bipartisan bill to ban sports betting on prediction markets
- Front Office Sports — The political backlash to prediction markets has arrived
- CNBC — Prediction market, casino and gaming lobbies increase spend in 2026
- CNBC — 44 states say CFTC has no authority over sports prediction markets