Comment Text:
Michael Selig the Chairman of the CFTC has shown an utter bias toward trying to regulate sports betting as futures markets. There is zero legal precedent to allow that to occur, especially since State laws already govern sports betting. There is no legally approved definition of sports betting as any type of futures contract. The CFTC is out of their jurisdiction, and there is no way any definition of futures contracts can be warped to convert gambling bets into a futures derivative, based on what futures contracts or swaps are legally defined.
The courts have clearly erred in accepting that Kalshi or Polymarket were harmed by not allowing them to take sports bets as futures bets. In fact, their businesses grew exponentially because of that allowance. The right decision would have been to reject any and all arguments presented by Kalshi or Polymarket to claim sports betting is a futures bet or a prediction market contract.
Clearly, the CFTC has been compromised with a political appointee, which includes direct pressure from executive branch and relatives of Donald Trump himself. Michael Selig, a Trump appointee, should lose his law license for the unethical actions he has taken to claim the CFTC has jurisdiction. They should absolutely be a non-biased party, and the CFTC has clearly stepped far out of bounds. Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr. are both involved directly with hedge funds or in advisory positions with Kalshi and Polymarket. Both their periphery roles in advisement or investment result in a direct conflict of interest clearly reflected by the actions of the CFTC.
Selig started making unsubstantiated claims, threatening unbiased support for predictions markets and claiming that warped definitions of CFTC current rules allowed the CFTC to have jurisdiction over sports betting futures as financial swaps. That definition is complete horseshit, if we are calling a spade a spade.
As a former NASD member and licensed Series 6,7, 63, 65, 66, variables contracts holder, I am appalled at Selig's lack of ethics, and his ignorance over what manipulates markets. I am appalled at the lack of honor for the oaths he took when he decided he would practice law. This is clearly not ethical or morally correct behavior, and it clearly appears there is something to gain for his behavior in helping orchestrate an unprecedented drop in value, in the multi-billion dollar ranges, for for sports stocks.
DraftKings Inc. has lost 60% of what was a $25 billion dollar valuation. Flutter stock even a more substantial drop in value.. The Securities and Exchange Commission has a duty to protect investors from this exact behavior of Michael Selig and the CFTC. It is the Securities and Exchange Commission that should be investing why market actors are allowed to impact my financial investment in equity in Draftkings Inc.(ticker symbol DKNG)
Selig argues CFTC Rule 40.11 (17 C.F.R. § 40.11) does prohibit DCMs from listing event contracts that “involve, relate to, or reference … gaming, ”but: Selig's argument is unsubstantiated as all of the sports betting events are gaming events. Football Game, Basketball Game, Soccer Gam, Hockey Game. These are examples of the warped interpretation the CFTC has taken. They are ignoring all other definitions to try to claim jurisdiction over an incorrect technicality, while they allow the violation of dozens of States settled laws. Clearly the federal jurisdiction is not what the voters of each State have sought, and clearly they are not respecting the representation of each State. States pay taxes, and this amounts to ignoring the representation that our payment of taxes allow as a State.
Another position is that if sports gambling bets can be viewed as prediction futures bets, then any investments convictions for violations of blue sky laws or knowing your client investment risk and abiding by those rules would be over-turnable. Please don't tell me that gambling sports predictions are financial investments, because if they are, we will have to review all other legal decisions where overly broad subjectivity and warped distortions of common sense laws were rejected. If we are allowed to warp legal precedent and definitions to approve niche types of far flung nonsensical variances as law, this will correlate to a warping of the entire legal system.
I am correct that CFTC Rule 40.11 and CEA § 5c(c)(5)(C) treat sports-outcome event contracts as “gaming” (prohibited from listing on registered entities), and the CFTC has long interpreted—and proposed to codify—that view. Football, hockey, basketball, and baseball game outcomes are classic examples of what the rule bars. The statute and rule do not “warp” definitions on a technicality; they use plain language that the CFTC, Congress, and now courts have applied consistently to identify these markets and bets as prohibited. The CFTC is contradicting their own rules. The CFTC is violating State laws as well. T
CFTC Rule 40.11(a)(1) (17 CFR § 40.11, unchanged as of April 2026):
“A registered entity shall not list for trading or accept for clearing … any … swap based upon an excluded commodity … that involves, relates to,or references … gaming, or an activity that is unlawful under any State or Federal law …”
“Gaming” is not exhaustively defined in the current regulation text, but the CFTC’s 2011 preamble, enforcement history (e.g., ErisX NFLcontracts 2021), and May 2024 proposed amendments (comments still open until April 30, 2026) explicitly include:
“the staking or risking … upon … the outcome of a game in which one or more athletes compete, or an occurrence or non-occurrence in connection with such a contest or game.”
Examples: wagers on pro/amateur sports results, point spreads, totals—exactly the contracts at issue.
CEA § 5c(c)(5)(C) (7 U.S.C. § 7a-2(c)(5)(C)): This is the statutory “public interest” gate. It requires the CFTC to determine whether certain event contracts (those involving the enumerated activities, including gaming) are “contrary to the public interest” and therefore may not be listed or traded on a registered entity.
Rule 40.11 is the CFTC’s implementing regulation that makes the prohibition automatic for the listed categories.
The CFTC has clearly abandoned the public interest and the protection of SEC protected investors for some wild biased politically pressured interpretation of their oversight, jurisdiction, and pressured attack on sportsbook stocks. The utter allowance of the marketplace to self assess, then the lack of oversight integrity with a false acceptance of those sports bet allowance, is a disgrace to legal precedent; and has opened the door to sidestepping protections so backstop provision (7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(A)) kicks in. I liken this to a clear violation of multiple rules to allow a supporting provision to control the outcome.
The CFTC's stance, procedural ineptness, lack of integrity, and lack of proper review is clearly evident, and their actions must be enjoined to refrain from both any further legal and public interference.
In furtherance of the need for the Securities and Exchange Commission to intervene, Appeals Courts are now using the provisional loophole to side with the CFTC based on legal error. This entire debacle is mind boggling. Sports betting as prediction market futures bets is not what my tax dollars created the CFTC to preside over. The CFTC is clearly out of their jurisdiction in multiple ways and areas.
For the CFTC to not ask for public comment before allowing sports bets as futures is not only sad, but flat out dangerous and negligent. For them to further waiver on their duty to initiate rule 40.11, so that (7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(A)) appears to be collusion. You don't skip enforcement of a hard fast rule to create a get out of jail free card, so they may point out a technical provision to avoid the oversight of the rules they violate. This is the biggest crock of ethical, moral, and financial shadiness I think I've ever witnessed; short of Madoff. This reeks of political pressure, and I fully believe Michael Selig should be impeached, if not have his law license stripped. These may be only my opinions, but I'm sure there are a lot of mutual agreement in the statements I've made.
