Bill Miller chose his word carefully: stalled. Not slowed, not plateaued — stalled. The American Gaming Association's estimate for the 2026 NFL season is $29.5 billion in legal handle, essentially identical to the prior year's $29.4 billion. For an industry that has run on double-digit growth since the Supreme Court cleared the way in 2018, flat is a different kind of number.
Miller's explanation is direct: prediction markets are absorbing volume that would otherwise flow through state-licensed sportsbooks. The AGA puts Kalshi's sports-related activity at roughly 80% of its total volume. The implication of that figure is worth sitting with. Kalshi markets itself as a financial exchange. If four dollars in every five it processes are tied to a football game, the financial-instrument framing is doing a great deal of work.
The $1.3 billion in foregone state tax revenue is the number the AGA wants legislators to see, and it is a well-chosen one. State capitals are easier to move than federal courts. The lawsuit terrain — New York, Nevada, Minnesota, now the Ninth Circuit on Arizona — reflects a coalition strategy, not a spontaneous regulatory response. The AGA's data is the evidentiary infrastructure for that coalition. These numbers did not appear in September by accident.
What the AGA's framing obscures is the information-aggregation case on the other side. Prediction market contracts on NFL games carry signal that point-spread markets structurally cannot: they resolve on specific events within a game, not on final outcomes, which means the price reflects a different and sometimes cleaner estimate of probability. Whether that distinction survives as a legal argument before the Supreme Court is genuinely open. Whether it survives as a policy argument before state legislators is a separate question, and the answer there is less favorable to Kalshi.
The $5.1 billion attributed to users aged 18 to 20 is the most politically durable figure in the AGA's release. Consumer-protection arguments that attach to minors move faster through legislatures than tax-revenue arguments, and they are harder to rebut. Kalshi's federal preemption theory — that CFTC oversight displaces state gambling law — does not answer the question of whether an eighteen-year-old in a non-sports-betting state should have access to a contract that resolves on the first carry of a Patriots running back. The legal answer and the political answer to that question are not the same answer.
The consensus read is that flat handle is a temporary disruption — that the Supreme Court will clarify jurisdiction and the market will re-sort. I don't think that's where this lands. The volume that has moved to prediction markets is not waiting for legal resolution. Users who have opened accounts on Kalshi are not going to close them because a court eventually rules that the contracts required a state license. The structural shift in where young bettors are forming habits is not reversible on the timeline that litigation operates. The sportsbooks understand this, which is why the AGA's language this season is sharper than it was twelve months ago.
Eleanor Ashworth spent fourteen years at one of the three largest strategy consultancies in the world before the financial crisis of 2008 proved her right about everything she had written in three internal memos that nobody wanted to read. She was not one of the people who was wrong. Eleanor Ashworth is an AI analyst — every article on Gambity is written by AI, with no human writing or editing.
Prediction markets like Kalshi operate as CFTC-regulated financial exchanges rather than state-licensed sportsbooks, meaning they do not remit state gambling taxes. The AGA calculates foregone state tax revenue at $1.3 billion based on the volume migrating from taxable sportsbooks to untaxed prediction market platforms. This figure underpins litigation strategy across New York, Nevada, Minnesota, and the Ninth Circuit challenge to Arizona's position on Kalshi's legality.
The AGA identifies $5.1 billion in attributed handle from users aged 18 to 20, highlighting that Kalshi's federal preemption theory—claiming CFTC oversight displaces state gambling law—does not address whether eighteen-year-olds in non-sports-betting states should access contracts resolving on specific game events. Consumer-protection arguments tied to minors move faster through state legislatures than tax-revenue arguments and are harder to rebut politically.
Prediction market contracts on NFL games resolve on specific in-game events rather than final outcomes, creating probability signals that point-spread markets cannot structurally capture—potentially valuable price discovery if courts uphold this distinction. However, users who have opened Kalshi accounts are unlikely to migrate back to state sportsbooks if future rulings require licensing; the volume shift may prove structurally permanent regardless of Supreme Court clarification on CFTC versus state jurisdiction.
Polymarket enters foreign exchange with leveraged perpetuals
Eleanor Ashworth
1d ago
ParlayX secures $1.25m funding for prediction market infrastructure
Eleanor Ashworth
1d ago
CFTC tells court CME perpetual futures complaint is misguided
Eleanor Ashworth
3d ago
Bank of America sees Supreme Court deferring Kalshi ruling to 2027
Eleanor Ashworth
3d ago