Kalshi and Polymarket have been battling for prediction-market supremacy while navigating legal challenges. But new research shows that public awareness of those companies remains limited, and most Americans don’t see a difference between sports betting and sports event contracts.

Week 1 of the NFL season was prediction markets mayhem. Kalshi recorded hundreds of millions of dollars in trading activity across the entire weekend, while Polymarket—which is preparing to reenter the U.S. after being barred for three-plus years—tallied more than $32 million on game outcomes alone. 

Yet new research from the American Gaming Association, provided exclusively to Front Office Sports, shows that awareness of Kalshi and Polymarket lags far behind that of Crypto.com and Robinhood, which also offer prediction markets (Crypto.com recently entered into a deal with Underdog Sports to offer sports event contracts in 16 states, while Robinhood rolled out new prediction markets—powered by Kalshi—that enable users to trade on the outcomes of pro and college football games).

Additionally, Americans aren’t buying the argument that sports event contracts are distinct from traditional sports betting—something Kalshi is arguing in multiple court battles (including lawsuits that it filed against state regulators and suits filed against it by Native American tribes). 

A survey of 2,025 U.S. registered voters, conducted in early August by YouGov on behalf of the AGA, found that 85% of respondents believe sports event contracts are gambling, not a financial instrument. 

Meanwhile, 84% say prediction-market platforms should be licensed on a state-by-state basis, like sportsbooks, and 65% think regulation should come from state or tribal regulators, not the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a federal agency that Kalshi has argued in court has “exclusive” jurisdiction over its event contracts.

The results of the survey are notable, because Kalshi and Polymarket are betting on the idea that they have found a loophole allowing them to offer products that look like sports wagers without being regulated as traditional sportsbooks. Kalshi’s event contracts are available in all 50 states after it self-certified with the CFTC. Polymarket is preparing to reenter the U.S. after buying QCX, a licensed derivatives exchange. Both companies count the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., as an advisor.

“This research has made it clear: Americans know a sports bet when they see one—and they expect prediction markets offering sports event contracts to be held to the same rules and consumer safeguards as every other state-regulated sportsbook,” said Bill Miller, president and CEO of the AGA, which is a trade group that advocates for the U.S. casino industry and supports legalized sports betting.

Industry voices note the tension between regulation and perception. A former longtime CFTC attorney tells FOS that Kalshi’s federally regulated status through the CFTC’s self-certification process gives it strong legal footing. Yet, “public perceptions about the market matter,” and “it’s very hard to say there is a distinction” between these sports event contracts and traditional wagers.”

James Angel, a Georgetown professor specializing in global financial market regulation, adds a different perspective. He tells FOS that financial markets allow people to “play” while contributing liquidity, information, and risk-bearing capacity. According to Angel, exchanges like those offered by Kalshi and Polymarket “provide safe places for people to scratch their gaming itch and I see no reason they should not be able to trade event contracts along with meme stocks.”

A representative for Polymarket did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and Kalshi didn’t provide comment by publication time.

Premier League soccer club Tottenham Hotspur is not for sale and has rejected multiple takeover approaches that were made after the departure last week of longtime executive Daniel Levy.

The club, majority owned by ENIC Sports—a firm run by London-born billionaire Joe Lewis—made clear in a Monday statement that it is not up for grabs. The company “has received, and unequivocally rejected” two separate takeover proposals, one from PCP International Finance and another from Firehawk Holdings. Spurs have an estimated valuation of $3.3 billion, according to Forbes. The value of the offers were not clear. 

PCP is led by Amanda Staveley, a British businesswoman with ties to the Saudi kingdom who is well-known as the former co-owner of another Premier League team, Newcastle. She sold her Newcastle stake in 2024. Firehawk is led by Wing-Fai Ng, CEO and executive director for short-form video app Triller, and Roger Kennedy, a non-executive director on the Triller board.

“The Board of the Club and ENIC confirm that Tottenham Hotspur is not for sale and ENIC has no intention to accept any such offer to acquire its interest in the Club,” the team said in Monday’s statement.

Both PCP and Firehawk made offers for Spurs in recent days, in the wake of Levy leaving. Levy, former chairman of the team, was one of the most influential people at Spurs for nearly 25 years. He stepped down as executive chairman last Thursday, although he still owns a stake in the club.

Rumors of a potential Spurs sale swirled prior to Levy’s departure. In fact, for much of the past two years there has been speculation. New York-based MSP Sports Capital was rumored as a suitor in late 2023 before stepping back, and Levy reportedly held talks with Qatar Sports Investments chairman Nasser Al-Khelaifi about a potential minority stake in 2024.

Under the U.K. Takeover Code, any investor acquiring more than 30% of the shares of an entity like Spurs would be required to launch a full public takeover offer. The U.K. Takeover Code also stipulates that any potential bidder that has been publicly identified has 28 days to announce one way or the other whether they intend to make a firm bid. Spurs noted in Monday’s statement that PCP and Firehawk have until Oct. 5 to do so.

PCP reportedly said on Monday it does not intend to make a takeover offer, while Firehawk has not commented. A representative for PCP did not immediately respond to a request for comment, while Firehawk could not immediately be reached.

The takeover talk comes after Spurs, last April, announced they had hired Rothschild & Co to advise as the club considered bringing on investors. “To capitalise on our long-term potential, to continue to invest in the teams and undertake future capital projects, the Club requires a significant increase in its equity base,” Spurs said in an April 2024 financial disclosure.

Off the field, revenue at Tottenham has risen by 170% over the last decade, sitting at a little more than $670 million as per this year’s Deloitte Football Money League, good for ninth among world soccer teams.

On the field, Spurs are preparing to compete in the 2025–26 UEFA Champions League, which begins Sept. 16, after qualifying by winning the 2024–25 Europa League with a 1-0 victory over Manchester United in the finals.

Thursday was a tale of two nights for Kalshi.

The prediction-market platform says it saw $27 million in trading volume on the Eagles’ victory over the Cowboys to start the NFL season. But in California, three Native American tribes asked a federal judge to prohibit Kalshi from offering those contracts on tribal lands in the state. 

If granted, that would mean Kalshi has to implement geofencing to block users in specific locations, something Kalshi has argued—in a separate lawsuit in Maryland—would be overly burdensome and cost millions of dollars. The tribes’ argument is that they have the exclusive right to operate gaming in California.

The tribes are also seeking a court ruling barring Kalshi from offering “false and misleading” advertisements, such as those that state the company’s sports event contracts are “legal in all 50 states.” Kalshi has been making such claims to promote its football event contracts.

In July, the Blue Lake Rancheria, the Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, and the Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians sued Kalshi and Robinhood (which runs trading markets from Kalshi’s exchange), seeking a preliminary injunction. The suit claims the sports markets offered violate the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) and the tribes’ Tribal-State Gaming Compacts with California. The Thursday filing was aimed at only Kalshi, although Robinhood is still a defendant in the case.

The sports event contracts offered by Kalshi and other prediction-market platforms have generated controversy because they appear so similar to sports betting. Kalshi maintains there’s a key distinction: Traditional wagers see users betting against “the house”—casinos or sportsbooks that set the odds and profit when bettors lose—while sports-prediction markets offer nationwide marketplaces where users trade against one another.

The tribes aren’t having it, stating in their motion that “Kalshi is wrong.”

“Enjoining Kalshi’s unregulated sports betting on Indian lands is manifestly in the public interest,” the filing said. “Gambling has always been a subject of concern in the United States. In every other context, gambling has been either prohibited as a public nuisance or strictly regulated because of the potential harms associated with unregulated gaming.”

Kalshi declined to comment Friday.

Attorney Dan Wallach, a U.S. gaming law expert, tells Front Office Sports “this could be a major turning point,” because—unlike in Kalshi’s other lawsuits, which are against state regulators—the tribes are invoking a federal law, the IGRA. That law permits federally recognized Native tribes to operate gaming facilities on tribal lands, but only under certain conditions.

That point could turn either way, however. If the court rules in the tribes’ favor, it strengthens the case that Kalshi’s sports event contracts are subject to the IGRA and other federal gaming laws, and therefore the company would not be allowed to operate in California because sports betting is illegal in the state. If it rules in Kalshi’s favor, it would boost the company’s case that its offerings are legal because Kalshi self-certified with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a federal regulator.

In Wallach’s view, the availability of sports event contracts in California on tribal lands “falls squarely within the scope” of the IGRA. 

He also noted, on the claims of false advertising by the tribes, that Kalshi has been “talking out of both sides of its mouth.”

“They’ve gotten a little over their skis with their marketing, which undercuts their legal claims,” he says.

Melinda Roth, a professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law, tells FOS it’s still up in the air how the court will come down on this. The controversy boils down to whether sports event contracts should be legally considered gaming.

“The issue is whether or not the tribes can successfully argue these are under the gaming umbrella, or whether Kalshi can argue they should be considered derivatives,” she says. 

Unlike pulling a slot machine, where chance entirely dictates the outcome, trading on a prediction market requires research and judgment, she says. That’s the same distinction that allowed daily fantasy sports to gain legal acceptance nationwide—although that too has faced controversy, most recently in California—and it’s why Kalshi could have a case that its products should be treated more like financial derivatives than gaming.

James Angel, a professor at Georgetown University who specializes in regulation of global financial markets, tells FOS: “We are running into a collision between gaming regulation and financial regulation.”

“There are undoubtedly public policy concerns over how to deal with problem gamblers,” he says, and financial regulators are grappling with the issue of “complex products” like the sports event contracts offered by Kalshi and others. 

Noting that he’s not a lawyer and therefore would not seriously opine on which side might win the case, Angel did make a prediction of his own. “I would guess the probability is 60% that the judge will find for the tribes on some technicality, and a 98% probability that the case will wind through the court system for years,” he tells FOS.