Americans Back Sports Prediction Markets But Reject Political Betting, New Poll Shows

A new survey commissioned by POLITICO and conducted by Public First, a United Kingdom-based polling firm, has found a clear divide in American attitudes toward prediction markets: adults broadly support legalizing sports-linked prediction contracts while simultaneously opposing real-money wagering on political outcomes including elections, pardons, and statements made by public figures.

The results emerge at a pivotal moment for the prediction market industry. Federal regulators at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission are actively developing new rules for the sector, while multiple state attorneys general have filed lawsuits challenging whether sports event contracts fall under state gambling law or federal CFTC jurisdiction. The POLITICO/Public First data adds public opinion into a policy debate that has until now been driven primarily by industry lobbying and legal arguments.

What Americans Support — and What They Don’t

The survey found that more than half of American adults support legalizing prediction market contracts tied to sports events. That support stands in direct contrast to attitudes toward political event contracts, where 44 percent of respondents said that betting on election outcomes should be unlawful. Similar majorities opposed wagers tied to presidential pardons and public statements by political figures.

The divide suggests that public opinion already draws a meaningful distinction between sports prediction markets and their political counterparts, even though regulators have historically addressed them under a single legal framework. That intuition aligns closely with the position staked out by the American Gaming Association, which has argued before Congress that sports event contracts are fundamentally different from political ones and should be governed separately from the financial contracts CFTC traditionally oversees.

Younger Americans Are Already in the Market

The survey also surfaced significant generational differences in both familiarity and participation. Twelve percent of adults between the ages of 18 and 24 reported that they had already placed a prediction market bet. The same share of respondents aged 25 to 34 said the same. Younger adults were also more likely to be familiar with how prediction markets function and more comfortable with the concept in general.

That generational pattern mirrors the early trajectory of legal sports betting following its expansion after 2018. Younger adults, who grew up with mobile apps and digital financial tools, adopted sports wagering at higher rates than older demographics during the initial growth period. If prediction markets follow a similar adoption curve, the current 12 percent participation rate among young adults may represent the leading edge of broader mainstream growth rather than a ceiling.

The Regulatory and Legal Backdrop

The POLITICO poll arrives as the legal status of sports event contracts remains actively contested. Kentucky, Nevada, Rhode Island, and New Mexico have all filed lawsuits against Kalshi and Polymarket, the two largest platforms in the space, arguing that sports event contracts constitute gambling products subject to state regulation rather than federally overseen financial instruments. The outcomes of those cases could significantly shape which platforms are permitted to operate in which states.

Meanwhile, the CFTC is finalizing its regulatory approach to prediction markets broadly. How those federal rules are written will determine whether existing platforms can expand freely and whether new entrants can compete in the space. Kalshi and DraftKings Predictions currently stand as the two largest U.S.-regulated platforms for sports event contracts, and both have an interest in a federal framework that favors their existing model.

For sports bettors exploring their options across a widening landscape, the growth of prediction markets represents an additional category of wagering activity. Those evaluating the full range of available products and offers can use the Sportsbook Promotions page as a starting point for comparing traditional sportsbooks alongside the newer prediction market platforms entering the mainstream.

The Practical Implication for Policy

The most actionable finding from the POLITICO/Public First survey is that any regulatory framework treating political and sports event contracts identically may face genuine public resistance. Americans appear to view wagering on game outcomes as categorically distinct from wagering on elections, even when the underlying mechanism is the same. That distinction, if it informs policy, would be a net positive for platforms whose business is rooted in sports.

Both DraftKings Promo Code and FanDuel Promo Code platforms have developed sports-adjacent prediction products as part of their broader wagering portfolios. A regulatory carve-out separating sports event contracts from political ones would allow those platforms to expand their prediction market offerings without carrying the same legal exposure as more politically focused competitors.

What the Data Means for the Industry

The POLITICO/Public First survey is the latest indication that prediction markets are no longer a niche product confined to financial professionals and political observers. As the CFTC works toward a final regulatory framework and state-level lawsuits progress through the courts, the industry is simultaneously growing its user base and navigating considerable legal uncertainty.

Public support for sports event contracts, as documented in this survey, gives the industry a concrete and credible argument in legislative and regulatory settings. When policymakers weigh the costs and benefits of restricting prediction markets, evidence that a majority of Americans support sports-linked contracts — and that younger demographics are already participating at meaningful rates — will likely factor into how final rules are structured.