Same game, two legal universes
Open two apps on the same phone during an NFL Sunday. One quotes a team at -110. The other quotes a contract on the same team winning at 54 cents. Economically those are near-identical propositions. Legally they are not even cousins, and that gap is the entire argument behind the comparison of prediction markets vs sports betting. Kalshi’s chief executive, Tarek Mansour, has now put the stakes bluntly: if courts side with the states, he says, prediction market operators may simply leave the United States.
This piece does two things. It explains how each product actually works at the mechanical level, and then explains why the regulatory label attached to it matters more to users than any feature on the screen.
What did Kalshi’s CEO warn about, exactly?
Mansour warned that prediction market operators could move their businesses outside the US if courts uphold the authority of individual states to regulate event contract trading. He made the comments at DC Fintech Week in Washington, defending Kalshi’s position in the ongoing legal fight over whether event contracts fall under federal commodities law or state gambling rules.
His framing was deliberately binary. “It’s not a choice of state versus federal market. It’s a choice of whether prediction markets exist in the US or whether they go offshore,” he said. He also said he felt “pretty good” about the company’s legal position, despite setbacks in some courts.
Read that quote carefully, because it is doing a lot of work. It recasts a jurisdictional question, which regulator writes the rules, as an existential one, whether the product survives at all. That is a reasonable thing for a CEO to argue and also a convenient thing for a CEO to argue. The source material does not detail which courts ruled which way or what Kalshi’s compliance costs would be under a state-by-state regime, so treat the “it’s this or offshore” claim as an argument being made in a live dispute rather than an established fact. Anyone publishing on it should verify the specific wording and the current case posture, which changes month to month.
What is a prediction market, in plain terms?
A prediction market is a venue where users buy and sell contracts on whether a specific, measurable event will happen. Prices move with supply and demand rather than being set by a bookmaker, and each contract settles at $1 if the event occurs or $0 if it does not. In the US, these are offered as event contracts on exchanges overseen by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as derivatives, not as gambling.
The price doubles as a probability estimate. A contract trading at 54 cents implies the market collectively prices that outcome at roughly 54%. Buy at 54 and the event happens, you receive 100 cents; it does not, you receive nothing. You can also sell before settlement at whatever the market will pay, which is closer to trading out of a position than to cashing out a bet.
The scope is far wider than sport. Event contracts have been listed on economic data releases, elections, weather and more, which is precisely why the commodities framing exists in the first place. Sports is the newest and most contested slice of it, and it is also the slice that looks exactly like a sportsbook to a casual user. Crypto firms have been pushing into the same space, which adds another layer of counterparty questions worth understanding before you fund an account — see our primer on crypto firms entering prediction markets.
How a sportsbook does the same job differently
A licensed sportsbook sets the odds itself and takes the other side of every bet you place. The operator’s traders and models price a market, add a margin, and manage their exposure across all customers. You are not matched against another bettor; you are transacting with the house.
That margin, the overround, is the cost of playing, and it is baked into the price rather than charged as a visible fee. Two sides of a coin-flip market priced at -110 each imply 52.38% probability apiece, or 104.76% in total. The extra 4.76 percentage points is the book’s theoretical hold. You never see a line item for it.
Regulation sits with gambling authorities. In the US that means a licence from each state’s gaming regulator, with separate approvals, taxes and advertising rules per state. Those regimes carry gambling-specific obligations: self-exclusion registers, responsible gambling tooling, age verification, and a regulator who will take a player complaint. Licensing jurisdiction is not a formality — it determines how much protection you actually get, as we cover in why a gambling licence matters when choosing an operator.
Prediction markets vs sports betting: where they actually diverge
Pricing and odds
Prediction market prices come from an order book; sportsbook odds come from the operator. On an exchange-style venue, the spread between best bid and best offer is the friction, and in thin markets that spread can be wide enough to wipe out any theoretical pricing advantage. A sportsbook’s price is firm, instantly available in size, and carries a known margin. Neither model is free. One shows you the cost, the other hides it in the line.
Who you’re on the other side of
On a prediction market you are matched against another trader, with the exchange and its clearing arrangements standing between you. On a sportsbook you are against the operator. This is the difference people most often oversell. “No house edge” is true in the narrow sense that the venue is not taking a position against you, and misleading in the broader sense that fees, spreads and liquidity gaps still cost money, and that the counterparty structure introduces its own risk if the venue is weakly supervised.
Regulatory classification
Event contracts are regulated as financial instruments; sports bets are regulated as gambling. That single line explains the licensing burden, the tax treatment, the advertising rules and the consumer protections attached to each.
| Feature | Prediction market (event contracts) | Licensed sportsbook |
|---|---|---|
| How prices are set | Traders’ buy and sell orders, quoted in cents | Operator’s traders and models, quoted as odds |
| Your counterparty | Another trader, matched on the exchange | The operator itself |
| Who oversees it | CFTC, as derivatives (contested for sports) | State gaming regulators, licence per state |
| Cost of participating | Trading and settlement fees, plus bid-ask spread | Margin built into the odds |
| Product scope | Any measurable outcome: economics, weather, elections, sports | Sports, plus limited novelty markets where permitted |
| Consumer protections | Derivatives-style market conduct and disclosure rules | Gambling-specific: self-exclusion, RG tools, complaint routes |
Why the label is the whole fight
Classification decides cost, reach and obligations, which is why operators and regulators are fighting over a definition rather than a feature. A federally regulated exchange lists a product once and offers it nationwide. A gambling operator licenses state by state, pays state gaming taxes, funds responsible gambling programmes and accepts a regulator’s conduct rules in each market.
Critics of the commodities framing call this regulatory arbitrage: an identical consumer experience with a lighter rulebook. Kalshi’s side argues event contracts are genuine derivatives with hedging and price-discovery functions that happen to include sports among many underlying events. Both positions have substance, and the courts have not resolved it.
Here is where I would push back on the industry’s favourite talking point. “Federally regulated” sounds stronger than “state licensed” to most readers, and in some respects it is. But derivatives regulation was not designed to protect people from themselves. It governs market integrity, disclosure and settlement. It does not come with the gambling-specific furniture a licensed sportsbook must install. That is the gap between the advertised number and the term that qualifies it: regulated, yes, just not for the harm most bettors need protecting from.
What going offshore would actually cost users
An offshore venue removes the regulator from the equation, which removes your recourse. If a platform operates outside any licensing regime, there is no authority to escalate a frozen withdrawal to, no mandated segregation of customer funds to rely on, no enforceable dispute process, and no obligation to honour a self-exclusion request you made elsewhere. Those are the known risks of unlicensed offshore betting platforms, and they would apply just as fully to an offshore prediction market.
Worth being honest about the asymmetry in the warning, though. If US venues close, demand does not vanish; it reroutes to whatever is reachable, which historically has meant less-supervised sites. That is a genuine policy argument against a restrictive outcome. It is also not an argument that any given operator’s current legal theory is correct. Both things can be true.
Should a curious bettor try prediction markets?
Only after checking whether the product is legal where you live, and only with the same discipline you would apply to a sportsbook. These are new, legally contested instruments whose status could change with a single ruling, and a product’s availability in an app store is not evidence that it is permitted in your jurisdiction.
If you are reading this from outside the US, in India for example, none of the CFTC-versus-states architecture applies to you at all. What governs you is your own jurisdiction’s rules on real-money gaming, which vary by state and have been shifting. Confirm the position locally before depositing anywhere.
What I would not do: treat a prediction market as a lower-risk version of betting because the pricing is peer-matched. The outcome is still binary, the exposure is still your stake, and a 54-cent contract can settle at zero. Set a budget, use deposit or loss limits where the platform offers them, and stop if it stops being entertainment. Support is available through national problem-gambling helplines.
The thing nobody can tell you yet is which rulebook this product ends up under. Until a court or a legislature settles it, anyone using an event contract venue is a customer of a business model that has not finished being defined — which is a different kind of risk from the one printed on the price.
About The Author
