Analyst touts Flutter’s prospects in new year
In a preview video of online-gaming stocks, released January 20, Jefferies Equity Research Analyst James Wheatcroft highlighted several igaming companies. But the bulk of his brief presentation was devoted to Flutter Entertainment.
“We still are very upbeat across the sector,” Wheatcroft said of igaming and online sports betting. He allowed that the sector was still in a transitional period. “The penetration rates are going to grow,” he elaborated. “Investors are going to be increasingly confident about the runway for U.S. growth,” including the potential for more stateside jurisdictions legalizing the activity. The macro looks pretty insulated from some of the consumer trends,” Wheatcroft added. He then pivoted to Flutter.
He said the FanDuel parent was drawing the most investor interest, both in the recent past and the immediate future. “The investor debate is very much focused on growth versus valuation,” Wheatcroft wrote. “We see some significant changes there which are going to make the story much simpler to understand. There is going to be a lot of discussion around [their] product,” Wheatcroft continued, highlighting Flutter’s upcoming My Way product, “very engaging for investors.”
Wheatcroft also emphasized that he was “still very interested in Entain.” He cited the BetMGM co-parent’s new Chief Executive Officer, Gavin Isaacs, as a “catalyst for investment.”
David McKee is an award-winning journalist who has three decades of experience covering the gaming industry.
Dig Deeper
Related stories
The Backstory
Why Flutter’s outlook became a litmus test for U.S. betting
The bullish case for Flutter Entertainment has been building amid a volatile stretch for online sports betting. As investors weigh growth against valuation and the near-term noise of handle swings, the company behind FanDuel has become a proxy for sentiment on the sector’s resilience, product innovation and legal risk. Analysts have been split on what’s signal versus static. On one side are those arguing the recent selloff overshot fundamentals and underestimated product moats. On the other are skeptics who see slowing handle growth, a tougher promotional environment and rising legal uncertainty from prediction markets that trade on sports outcomes. Parsing those threads shows why the narrative around Flutter has shifted rapidly from anxiety to guarded confidence and back again.
From selloff to snapback: analyst pushback on prediction-market fears
Concerns over prediction markets catalyzed one of the sharpest sentiment swings. When retail-facing prediction exchanges touted parlay-like products during an NFL showcase, shares of established sportsbooks slumped on fears of long-term erosion of parlay income. Jefferies analyst James Wheatcroft countered that the move was an “overreaction,” arguing Flutter’s core advantages would endure. In his note rebuking the slide, he said the newcomers lacked the breadth, depth and player-prop inventory that drive parlay economics for leaders like FanDuel, and pointed to the company’s outsized promotions budget as a durable moat. He also flagged potential state pushback given tax leakage and even floated the prospect of federal action to clarify the market. Read his case in Jefferies’ rebuke of the Flutter selloff tied to prediction markets, which also posited Flutter could enter the space if needed.
The core contention: parlay dominance depends on scale, pricing and product variety across leagues and bet types. Early prediction-market offerings, confined to narrow pregame NFL markets with limiting features, were unlikely to replicate that. Jefferies’ channel checks suggested returns for prediction markets degrade where regulated sportsbooks are already available, further tempering disruption risk in states with mature OSB ecosystems.
Pressure points: J.P. Morgan’s cautious initiation
Against that defense came a more guarded take from J.P. Morgan. Analyst Estelle Weingrod started coverage in late January with a view that Flutter shares remained under pressure amid uncertainty on handle growth, potentially tighter bettor liquidity after a strong late-year hold and the murkiness around prediction markets’ encroachment. She trimmed outer-year estimates and cut 2026 revenue and cash-flow forecasts by about 10%, citing a step down in expected handle CAGR to 6% from 9%. Her base case still assumed a compelling revenue trajectory but with less conviction on the balance of handle, hold and promotions over the coming year. For details, see J.P. Morgan’s initiation highlighting slowing handle and prediction-market risk.
Weingrod also spotlighted the divergence between sports and igaming. FanDuel’s online casino unit was a standout, growing faster than the market, while the sportsbook faced calendar and matchup headwinds late in the year. She flagged the fourth-quarter earnings call as a key venue for management to clarify the timing and scope of any in-house prediction-market product, and to reaffirm medium-term revenue guidance amid shifting promotional intensity and evolving U.S. tax dynamics.
Back to basics: Jefferies argues fundamentals still win
In early February, Jefferies doubled down on its constructive stance, asserting softness in handle did not equate to structural cannibalization. Wheatcroft said nonstructural factors — a less favorable sports calendar and sharper promotional discipline — were more plausible culprits, and that management would reiterate minimal fiscal impact from prediction markets while leaning into a multiyear U.S. growth runway. He modeled that even low single-digit handle growth could support the company’s midteens U.S. growth goals, helped by product mix, pricing and igaming outperformance. He also anticipated cost savings tied to FanDuel’s event-contracts initiative and framed international trends as mixed but improving. The full argument appears in Jefferies’ “stronger than it looks” analysis.
The message: refocus on unit economics and scale advantages. With FanDuel’s share and product cadence still intact, and with U.K. revenues up since 2024 despite flat handle, Jefferies argued valuation had become too punitive for the fundamentals. The near-term debate would likely pivot on whether management could convince investors that growth targets remain achievable with more rational promotions and without reliance on aggressive handle expansion.
The legal wild card: how event contracts complicate the map
Legal overhang remains a swing factor. A Jefferies briefing with sports betting attorney Daniel Wallach underscored how unresolved litigation over whether sports-related event contracts qualify as regulated “swaps” has left incumbents sidelined while prediction markets test boundaries in states that prohibit sportsbooks. His analysis suggested early procedural and statutory interpretations favored the prediction exchanges, but the path to clarity could run through Congress, the Supreme Court or converging lower-court rulings — a process likely to stretch at least a year. For a deeper dive, see legal analysis on FanDuel and DraftKings stuck “on the sidelines”.
The stakes are twofold. If sports event contracts are deemed swaps, regulated sportsbooks could enter the category at scale, reducing first-mover advantages for prediction platforms. If not, the status quo persists and incumbents keep focus on their licensed markets. In the interim, exchanges can surface in non-OSB states, drawing headlines and potentially shaping public and regulatory opinion. Operators must also weigh tribal relationships and state licensing optics before moving, heightening the strategic caution that analysts like Jefferies have advised.
Next frontier: California’s talks, size and conditions
Amid the legal fog, the biggest commercial prize looms on the West Coast. Jefferies reported that major operators — FanDuel’s parent among them — were engaged in preliminary discussions with California tribes via the Sports Betting Alliance. The firm called this constructive but emphasized the complexity of economics and governance in a state with more than 100 tribes and a mandatory ballot measure. Early math suggests most economics would flow to tribes, leaving a competitive but modest operator pool relative to the market’s headline size. See the contours in Jefferies’ note on prospective California negotiations.
Timing is another variable. While a 2026 ballot is possible, 2028 may be more realistic. A further wrinkle: tribes may seek assurances that operators won’t engage in prediction markets as part of any deal, a condition that could shape corporate strategy if federal policy later blesses event contracts. Jefferies posited that if prediction markets did gain federal cover, exchanges would have a head start in California, while traditional operators would face high entry costs to catch up. That tug-of-war reinforces why the sector’s legal trajectory and the cadence of state-by-state expansion are now inseparable drivers of valuation.
Together, these threads explain why investor debate around Flutter has intensified. Product depth, igaming strength and scale support the long-term case, but near-term handle variability, legal uncertainty and expansion timing keep pressure on the multiple. How management addresses these crosscurrents — particularly on prediction markets, promotions and the California path — will determine whether optimism about the year ahead becomes conviction.
