Survey finds political prediction markets face pushback in the US
A new survey conducted by POLITICO and Public First found that Americans are more supportive of prediction markets tied to sports and entertainment events than those linked to politics and government affairs. The findings suggest public attitudes towards prediction markets vary significantly depending on the type of event being traded. While respondents showed greater acceptance of contracts related to sporting outcomes, support declined for markets involving elections, political decisions, and other sensitive public issues.
The poll found that 44 per cent of respondents believe betting on election outcomes should be illegal, compared with 30 per cent who support its legality. Similar opposition was recorded for prediction markets involving presidential pardons and statements made by public figures.
The findings arise as prediction market operators increase their offerings in political events and public policy. Supporters claim that these markets help improve forecasting and information gathering, while detractors see them as a form of gambling.
Key findings from survey
A POLITICO/Public First survey highlights real differences in how Americans view prediction markets. About 53 per cent of people support making sporting event contracts legal, while 23 per cent oppose the idea. Many individuals are familiar with sports betting because it is already associated with games through fantasy leagues, bracket tournaments, and legal wagering.
When it comes to politics, the picture shifts. Approximately 44 per cent of respondents say that betting on election results should be banned, while 30 per cent support legalisation. Markets linked to presidential pardons and political leaders’ pronouncements were also met with fierce criticism. Approximately 43 per cent opposed pardon-related markets, with only 25 per cent supporting them. Betting on presidential words or news reports elicited comparable opposition.
Opinions on prediction market categories
The poll results reveal an interesting fact: public opinion varies depending on the type of prediction market in question. When it comes to weather prediction markets, over 46 per cent of individuals support the concept, while approximately 24 per cent are opposed. Award show contracts followed similar patterns. The difference boils down to perceived stakes. Weather forecasts and Oscar predictions are generally seen as low-risk categories. Election and military conflict prediction markets, on the other hand, suffer greater public mistrust because of the potential real-world consequences.
Contracts related to war and terrorism drew the most criticism. Fifty-seven per cent of respondents believed betting on wars should be outlawed, while 64 per cent opposed terrorism-related markets. Many people find it unethical to profit from predictions of violence or catastrophe.
Massive growth potential
Nearly $700 million has already been traded on 2028 presidential election markets, according to POLITICO, and the 2024 US election became the largest prediction market event in history with more than $3.6 billion in volume on international platforms. These numbers show that demand exists despite controversy.
Analysts expect political and public policy contracts to become a major growth area. Forecasts suggest these markets could represent about 27 per cent of total trading volume by 2030, up from around 10 per cent in early 2025. Some estimates project annual volumes of $266 billion or more.
Regulatory pressure
More than 25 bills related to prediction markets have been introduced at the federal level this year. These proposals cover issues such as election integrity, sports contracts, insider trading, and government participation. Some bills aim to ban election-related contracts altogether, while others would prevent elected officials, judges, and government insiders from taking part. Legislators argue that these measures are needed to protect public trust and avoid conflicts of interest.
State governments are taking various approaches to regulating prediction markets, demonstrating how fragmented the sector has become. Minnesota recently adopted a wide ban that includes sports, election results, weather forecasts, and entertainment awards. The law quickly sparked legal challenges from industry participants. If reversed, operators may obtain a stronger legal foothold.
Tennessee chose a different route. Rather than outright outlawing the market, Tennessee passed legislation to deter insider trading and manipulation. Supporters claim that the law protects consumers without slowing innovation, whilst opponents believe that additional regulation is needed, particularly in political markets.
What lies ahead for prediction markets
Prediction markets are at a turning point, with their future depending on how regulators and the public respond to ongoing concerns. Prediction markets can serve as useful forecasting tools, but they also raise questions about ethics, manipulation, and trust. Policymakers face the challenge of encouraging innovation while protecting democratic institutions and market integrity. Strict rules could limit growth, while weak oversight might open the door to abuse. As trading volumes rise, regulators will be under pressure to set clearer standards. Decisions made in the next few years could determine whether prediction markets become mainstream or remain a niche activity.
The fuse is lit. In Mexico City, 01–03 Sept 2026, North America meets Latin America. SiGMA North America welcomes 4,000 delegates for three days of deals, insight, and startup sparks. Serious insight. Real deals. Book your spot.
