NBA Signs CFTC Deal, Selects Kalshi and Polymarket for Betting

The NBA has moved to formalize the way sports prediction markets handle league data and integrity controls by naming Kalshi and Polymarket as preferred exchanges and signing an information-sharing agreement with the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The steps are intended to reduce the risk of insider trading and manipulation in basketball-related event contracts, while giving approved platforms access to official NBA statistics used for contract settlement.

In an announcement published on the NBA’s website, the league said the agreement will allow Kalshi and Polymarket to use NBA data provided by Sportradar—NBA’s designated data distribution partner—to settle authorized markets. The NBA also granted the two exchanges rights to use NBA intellectual property and to run promotional activities in the United States, under the league’s integrity framework.

Key takeaways

• The NBA selected Kalshi and Polymarket as preferred prediction market partners and tied them to NBA data from Sportradar for settlement.
• An information-sharing agreement with the CFTC is designed to help address insider trading, fraud, and irregular activity in prediction markets.
• Integrity safeguards include a ban on NBA and team personnel trading NBA event contracts and an obligation to cooperate on suspicious-trading investigations.
• The NBA expanded its existing relationship with DraftKings to cover prediction markets and signaled more arrangements with other operators in the coming weeks.
• The NBA’s action arrives while courts and states continue to dispute whether federal commodities oversight preempts state gambling laws for prediction platforms.

NBA integrity framework meets CFTC information sharing

According to the NBA’s announcement, the league’s commercial partnership model is explicitly connected to compliance and market integrity. Under the integrity safeguards described, NBA and team personnel are prohibited from trading NBA event contracts. The NBA also requires cooperation if regulators or exchanges identify suspicious trading behavior tied to basketball events.

Separately, the CFTC described the arrangement as a way to strengthen information sharing to tackle insider trading and fraud within prediction markets. In a related CFTC announcement, CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig said that improving data exchange between the NBA and the regulator would help address misconduct risks that can arise when market participants have nonpublic information or when markets are susceptible to manipulation.

The NBA is not the first major US sports league to pursue similar steps with the CFTC. The league “joins” Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League in creating comparable arrangements, according to CFTC communications.

DraftKings deal expands, and more operators may follow

The NBA also broadened an existing agreement with DraftKings. While the specifics of what changes were made were not detailed in the provided text, the league said the arrangement now extends to prediction markets. The NBA added that it expects to announce similar agreements with other industry operators in the weeks ahead.

For prediction markets, these kinds of frameworks matter because access to authoritative event data and clear rules around integrity can directly affect whether markets can operate consistently and withstand regulatory scrutiny. Equally important, the NBA’s restrictions on league and team participation aim to reduce one of the most common concerns critics raise about sports-based wagering-like products—conflicts that could undermine fair dealing.

Legal fight over federal vs. state oversight continues

The NBA’s announcements land amid an ongoing legal dispute over the proper regulatory approach for prediction markets. The central question in the dispute described in the source is whether federal commodities laws govern these markets to the extent they supersede state gambling rules.

The conflict has generated inconsistent outcomes across federal courts. In September, the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled against Kalshi in a case brought by Ohio and Tennessee, following a similar conclusion by the 9th Circuit. The source also notes that an earlier decision by the 3rd Circuit permitted Kalshi to keep operating in New Jersey while its appeal proceeds.

Beyond courtroom rulings, enforcement at the state level has continued. The article says that on Oct. 20, Utah Attorney General Derek Brown sued Kalshi, alleging the platform facilitated illegal betting in the state since 2024. Utah officials are seeking to recover an estimated $30 million to $60 million in profits that they allege were earned by Kalshi and other defendants, according to the source’s summary.

Supreme Court request and broader sports integrity concerns

The legal battle also has a potential endpoint: the US Supreme Court. The source reports that the Supreme Court has been asked to review a dispute involving New Jersey, with support reportedly coming from 39 states and Washington, DC.

It also states that the NFL backed the petition, even though the NFL has not entered into commercial partnerships with prediction market exchanges. The NFL’s position, as described, is that certain sports event contracts can threaten game integrity because they may be susceptible to manipulation. As of the information provided, the justices had not agreed to hear the case.

For market participants, the interplay between court decisions and league-led integrity measures creates a moving target. On one hand, league partnerships with exchanges and regulators can help establish operational guardrails and reduce misconduct risk. On the other hand, the continued legal uncertainty—especially around whether federal commodities jurisdiction displaces state gambling enforcement—still influences the compliance posture and long-term viability of sports event contract platforms in different states.

Going forward, readers should watch whether the CFTC’s information-sharing approach expands to additional leagues and exchanges, and whether the Supreme Court decides to take up the New Jersey dispute—because that outcome could materially reshape the regulatory landscape for sports prediction markets across the US.