Robert Douglas
Associate Editor
Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD 2028
On August 5, 2026, On3, a sports media company whose coverage focuses primarily on collegiate sports and recruiting, announced a rather eye-opening partnership with Polymarket, one of the leading prediction markets in the world. On3’s partnership with Polymarket will entail original and sponsored content and market-based storytelling in the world of college sports. Interestingly, the partnership will not feature content related to high school recruiting and the transfer portal, areas in which On3 has become a national leader. However, this is not the first partnership between sports entities and prediction markets. As these partnerships become increasingly common, they raise several questions regarding the integrity of sports leagues and media, in addition to the seemingly endless regulatory headaches. To maintain the highest order of honesty in sports and the media, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the leading regulatory body for prediction market compliance, must carefully monitor these partnerships and close the gaps in its current framework.
A long history of placing and policing bad bets
The sudden connection between sports entities and betting platforms seems incongruous considering the historically fraught relationship between the two. From the 1919 Black Sox to the Boston College basketball point-shaving debacle to the recent news involving former college quarterback Brendan Sorsby, the negative aspects of mixing sports and gambling seems to far outweigh the positives. In an age where seemingly every sporting event might be rigged, these public scandals do very little to absolve an industry already facing an integrity crisis.
Just recently, the National Basketball Association (NBA) faced a scandal involving Terry Rozier, a former NBA player alleged to have removed himself from games and intentionally underperformed in exchange for cash bribes from the mafia and other bettors. Working separately, they supposedly placed large wagers on Rozier’s underperformance, allowing them to earn a substantial profit. Additionally, Major League Baseball (MLB) faced its own betting scandal when Cleveland Guardians pitchers Emmanuel Clase and Luis Ortiz were alleged to have given bettors information of the type, velocity, and result of a pitch in advance.
However, these scandals have not prevented sports media companies and prediction markets from partnering. In March 2026, MLB and Polymarket agreed to a licensing deal that gave the latter exclusive access to the MLB’s data and iconography. This was preceded by a similar agreement struck in October 2025 between the National Hockey League (NHL) and two of the most well-established prediction market platforms, Kalshi and the aforementioned Polymarket.
On the flip side, these partnerships have created the need for guardrails, both within the partnership and outside it. For instance, MLB explicitly made note of its efforts to contain Polymarket’s reach to events that did not pose an integrity risk to the game. This included betting restrictions on certain events, such as individual pitches, manager decisions, and umpire performance, among others.
On the administrative side, the CFTC sent out an official advisory against insider trading in February of this year after two instances of misuse of nonpublic information by traders. The advisory reaffirmed the CFTC’s authority to police illegal trading practices on prediction markets. In one instance, a political candidate bet on his own candidacy, and in another, an individual bet on the performance of a YouTube channel he had a formal affiliation with. While these events were monitored and acknowledged, the regulatory framework for prediction markets involving sports remains relatively thin.
With these risks in mind, the role of the CFTC has become increasingly vital. Currently, because the CFTC treats prediction markets as swaps, they are governed by federal regulations. Largely speaking, so long as prediction markets avoid listing event contracts that go against the public interest, they are still legal. This typically applies to large scale catastrophes like war, terrorism, and assassinations, but as event markets become more proliferated and accessible, sturdier regulation is likely needed to ensure a fair marketplace.
A test case and a turf war
The partnership between On3 and Polymarket is most notable for what isn’t included. Initially, On3’s press release announcing the partnership did not include the topics they intended to exclude on Polymarket, specifically, events related to the collegiate transfer portal and high school commitment decisions. Only after widespread criticism did On3 publish an amended press release that included a discussion of certain events the partnership would not offer. This sequence shows regulatory guardrails can come from public pressure instead of administrative bodies. But, regardless of what On3 claimed, it is easy to envision a world where the public can bet on what schools players transfer or commit to. From there, it’s even easier to foresee how these prediction markets could become compromised, with legitimate media sites being complicit.
The lack of formalized guardrails is already drawing state attention. Certain states are attempting to enact legislation that limits the proliferation of prediction markets and their offerings. In late August, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the sports-related event contracts offered by prediction markets were not swaps under federal law, opening the door for states to regulate these platforms like they do regular sports betting services. The impact is massive, and there is now a struggle for control of these markets.
That struggle is a warning to the CFTC. If the agency wants to remain the primary regulator of this space, it cannot rely on advisories and the self-policing of leagues and media companies. It should scrutinize media partnerships like On3’s and set clear rules on the markets most vulnerable to manipulation, such as player-based props and contracts on amateur athletes. Given the fraught history of sports and sports betting, closer federal monitoring of these partnerships would be a step in the right direction for professional leagues and media sites, and it would close a gap in current regulation before it is filled by a patchwork of state rules.