Share 
Three in four Americans consider wagering through prediction markets a form of gambling, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll reported Oct. 12. The survey also found bipartisan opposition to betting on US election results.
Pennsylvania gaming regulators have raised similar concerns about sports prediction markets, arguing that they should follow state gambling laws. The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board has also challenged platforms allowing customers younger than 21 to participate.
Prediction markets offer contracts tied to outcomes on elections, sporting events, and government decisions.
The view that wagering through prediction markets is gambling was shared by 81% of Republicans and 79% of Democrats. Only 8% of all respondents said the activity was not gambling, while 14% were unsure.
Election betting drew opposition from 60% of respondents, while 13% supported it and 24% were unsure. Opposition included 69% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans. Nearly half of all respondents, 46%, strongly opposed election betting, while 14% somewhat opposed it.
The nationwide survey included 4,506 adults and was conducted online from Sept. 30 through Oct. 5.
Most object to betting on government actions
Americans also objected to wagering on government actions. Markets involving US military actions drew opposition from 65% of respondents, while 63% opposed those tied to government policy announcements or decisions.
Only 8% of respondents supported using prediction markets to wager on US military actions, while 9% supported contracts involving government policy announcements or decisions. Both categories received less support than either election betting or prediction markets involving professional sports.
Sports contracts received more support, although opponents still outnumbered supporters. For prediction markets involving professional sports, 43% opposed the activity and 29% supported it. The sports question concerned prediction markets specifically, rather than all sports betting.
Only 7% of respondents said they had ever wagered money through a prediction market.
Strong opposition to government officials betting
Overall, 88% of respondents said it was inappropriate for members of Congress and their staff to wager on political events through prediction markets. That included 93% of Democrats and 89% of Republicans.
The same share said political wagering was inappropriate for the president and members of the administration.
Reuters reported concerns that government insiders could trade on confidential information. Kalshi and Polymarket say they monitor misconduct, refer suspicious accounts to authorities, and have introduced restrictions to address it.
Kalshi says candidates cannot bet on their own races and it does not allow trading on military operations.
Pennsylvania challenges federal oversight of sports contracts
When asked about stricter government regulation of prediction markets, 45% favored tighter rules, 9% opposed them and 42% neither supported nor opposed them.
Support differed by party, with 57% of Democrats and 39% of Republicans favoring stricter regulation.
In an April 30 letter, PGCB Executive Director Kevin O’Toole argued that contracts on sporting outcomes constitute sports wagering under Pennsylvania law. The board announced the submission May 5.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission treats event contracts as financial products under federal oversight. The PGCB disputes the argument that this removes sports contracts from state gambling laws.
Age restrictions were a central concern in Pennsylvania’s filing. Licensed Pennsylvania sportsbooks require customers to be at least 21, while many prediction markets permit participation at 18.
O’Toole also questioned whether federal regulators were equipped to oversee small-dollar transactions by young customers.
The board argued that expanding access to sports contracts could expose younger users to gambling-related harm, even if federal regulators have the authority to permit the markets.
