NCAA Demands CFTC Halt $320M College Sports Betting Markets—Citing Student Safety

The NCAA just threw a Hail Mary at regulators—demanding an immediate shutdown of a massive, unregulated betting arena. They're not playing around.

The $320 Million Blind Spot

While traditional sportsbooks operate under a microscope, a parallel market has ballooned in the shadows. We're talking about prediction markets where the 'assets' are the outcomes of college games. No licenses, no age gates—just pure, speculative action on amateur athletes. The NCAA claims this gray zone creates a direct pipeline for corruption and undue pressure on students, turning campuses into trading floors.

Safety Play or Power Move?

The argument hinges on student welfare, but the subtext screams control. The NCAA's model depends on the 'amateur' status of its athletes. Any market that monetizes their performance—especially one outside the NCAA's revenue stream—threatens the entire economic foundation. It's a preemptive strike against a system that could, theoretically, let the market decide an athlete's value in real-time. Talk about disruptive technology.

The Regulatory End-Around

Here's the twist: these markets often operate on decentralized platforms or under novel financial instrument classifications. They've cleverly sidestepped traditional gambling laws by framing bets as 'event contracts' or 'information markets.' The CFTC, more accustomed to overseeing wheat futures than point spreads, is now the unlikely referee in this game. The NCAA is forcing their hand, betting that 'student safety' is a more compelling argument than 'market innovation.'

A Cynical Finance Jab

It's the oldest story in the book—an entrenched institution trying to ban the new, decentralized competition before it renders their monopoly obsolete. They dress it up in moral concern, but it reeks of the same protectionism we see when big finance tries to shackle crypto. Fear of a free market, disguised as virtue.

The final whistle hasn't blown. If the CFTC acts, it sets a precedent that could ripple into other prediction markets. If they don't, the NCAA's multi-billion dollar empire faces a new, unpredictable opponent: a free market for its own product. Either way, the game has changed.

As Prediction Markets Grow, NCAA Pushes for Safeguards

In a letter dated January 14, 2026, NCAA President Charlie Baker urged CFTC Chairman Michael Selig to halt collegiate sports prediction trading until stronger safeguards are put in place.

Baker argued that although prediction markets are often framed as financial products, many now function in practice like sports wagering.

NCAA noted that platforms are offering moneyline, spread, and total markets on college games that closely mirror traditional betting, while operating under a lighter regulatory framework.

The timing of the letter comes as prediction markets experience explosive growth. Total daily trading volume across major platforms reached a record $701.7 million on January 12, with sports accounting for a growing share of activity.

Platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket together processed tens of billions of dollars in trades during 2025, and sports markets now represent roughly three-quarters of Kalshi’s weekly volume and nearly 40% of Polymarket’s.

In 2026, prediction models will be used to collectively decide what is true and what is not [true] and as a guide for fact-checking, analysts say. #Polymarket #Kalshi #PredictionMarkets #BTChttps://t.co/fkQeRz28Qs

That scale has drawn institutional interest, but it has also raised alarms among regulators and sports bodies.

At the center of the NCAA’s concern is student safety. Baker warned that college prediction markets often allow participants as young as 18, compared with the 21-and-over requirement in most states for sports betting.

NCAA surveys show that 58 percent of individuals aged 18 to 22 have participated in sports betting, with a significant portion reporting academic, financial, and mental health consequences.

The letter also highlighted gaps in advertising rules. While sportsbooks face restrictions on marketing to college campuses, similar limits do not consistently apply to prediction markets.

The NCAA said some students may mistakenly view prediction trading as a FORM of investing rather than gambling, despite the inherent unpredictability of sports outcomes.

NCAA Cites Harassment and Integrity Gaps in College Prediction Platforms

That framing, Baker argued, increases the risk of excessive participation and financial harm.

Integrity monitoring was another key issue, as the NCAA monitors more than 23,000 contests annually for suspicious activity and relies on detailed data, including bettor geolocation, to investigate irregularities.

Baker said many prediction platforms lack this level of oversight and are not required to share integrity alerts with other operators or governing bodies.

He pointed to recent efforts by prediction platforms to seek approval for markets tied to the college transfer portal as an example of activity that could create severe risks for athletes if left unchecked.

The NCAA also raised concerns about harassment, as Baker said student-athletes frequently report abuse from bettors, including online harassment tied to game outcomes.

He argued that prediction markets should be required to enforce anti-harassment measures across platforms, including banning participants who target athletes.

Harm reduction resources were also cited as missing, with the NCAA noting that many states direct sportsbook revenue toward gambling education and treatment programs on campuses, a mechanism that prediction markets do not consistently provide.

The request places the CFTC in a difficult position, as prediction markets fall under federal commodities law rather than state gambling statutes, and the agency has previously approved certain sports-related contracts.

However, the rapid growth of college-focused markets and the entry of major sports betting and fantasy operators into the space have intensified scrutiny.