The NCAA provided written testimony during a congressional hearing, arguing that unregulated sports prediction markets threaten athletes and sports integrity
A House Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development subcommittee heard testimony on Tuesday over how sports-related prediction markets should be regulated, with the NCAA providing its position on how the segment is affecting college sports.
The NCAA was not among the five witnesses called to testify in person in the hearing, but submitted written testimony arguing that the rapid, unregulated growth of college sport prediction markets poses a serious threat to athletes and sports integrity.
The NCAA asked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to suspend college sports prediction markets unless stronger safeguards are put in place.
That position follows NCAA president Charlie Baker’s January push for an indefinite suspension of these offerings.
The NCAA also called for a minimum age requirement of 21 to participate in these markets and raised specific concerns about prop-style contracts tied to player performances.
Its testimony asked lawmakers to require discussions with governing entities before approving new prediction markets for college sports, along with funding for gambling education and stronger protections against harassment of athletes by frustrated bettors.
David Bean, chairman of the Indian Gaming Association, offered testimony that closely aligned with the NCAA’s position, criticizing prediction market companies for marketing through social media influencers and arguing that these platforms sidestep the regulatory systems governing tribal and commercial gaming.
The American Gaming Association’s Chris Cylke echoed similar criticism of the industry’s advertising practices.
Other witnesses, including attorneys representing financial and derivatives law practices, defended the sector’s existing self-regulatory framework, citing data protection and age-verification measures already in place.
Subcommittee chair Dusty Johnson concluded that lawmakers still need to determine whether current tools are sufficient to protect consumers and market integrity.