Financial trading firm Jump Trading hops onboard sports event markets trend

Dig Deeper

Related stories

2025/11/05: Kalshi appoints former Uber executive as first Chief Financial Officer 2025/09/30: Sleeper Markets sues Commodity Futures Trading Commission over alleged license interference 2025/10/28: Kalshi sues New York regulators over event contracts rules 2025/01/23: Prediction market Kalshi launches event contracts on sports

The Backstory

Wall Street’s latest experiment in prediction meets sports

Jump Trading’s move into sports event markets lands at the intersection of two hot trends: the financialization of prediction markets and the normalization of sports-linked derivatives. The firm’s interest is not out of the blue. Jump previously backed Sporttrade and argued that “the US sports betting market is ready for a new model that better suits the American bettor,” a thesis it laid out in a 2021 investment note on its website making the case for market-style wagering. Now, Jump is engaging with event contracts on Kalshi, signaling that liquidity and market making from professional trading firms could become a defining feature of how these platforms mature.

Finance-native players are testing whether event contracts can deliver tighter spreads, deeper books and a user experience closer to listed markets than to sportsbooks. That promise is attracting capital and talent while luring traditional market participants off the sidelines. But the model still sits in a regulatory gray zone, especially when the events relate to sports.

Kalshi’s pivot into sports set the stage

The latest wave started when Kalshi expanded beyond macro and policy topics to offer sports event contracts structured as “will [team] win [title]” markets. The company went live with those listings in January after submitting paperwork to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, pushing into territory where product design and legal categorization matter as much as pricing. As Prediction market Kalshi launches event contracts on sports reported, the shift mirrored similar efforts by other platforms and came against a backdrop of contested oversight, with the CFTC scrutinizing rivals’ offerings.

Kalshi’s approach draws a line between federally regulated event-based futures and “bets,” arguing that its contracts are financial instruments. That distinction helped the exchange win a high-profile fight over election markets last year, bolstering its case that event contracts can operate under existing derivatives law. But sports add new risk. Market structure questions—who can participate, how settlement works, what data verifies outcomes—become more acute when performance and integrity safeguards cross over from gaming into finance.

Jurisdiction fights are reshaping the map

The shift into sports accelerated a broader contest between federal and state regulators. In New York, Kalshi sued the state gaming commission, arguing that the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction over its product set and that state enforcement improperly recasts event contracts as gambling. The suit, detailed in Kalshi sues New York regulators over event contracts rules, mirrors disputes in other states and could set precedent on where finance ends and wagering begins.

Nevada has already staked a clear position. The Nevada Gaming Control Board told licensees that sports event contracts are wagers under state law and require a sports pool license, even if the contracts are listed on federally supervised exchanges. The directive, summarized in Nevada Gaming Control Board warns licensees that sports event contracts are wagers, attached formal guidance reminding operators that partnering with unauthorized prediction markets could invite disciplinary action. The board also released the notice publicly, which is accessible as Notice 2025-77. In parallel, the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board called for lawmakers to press the CFTC on the rise of sports prediction products.

These state-level moves are not just about sports. They test whether event-driven trading must conform to gaming frameworks in markets where retail bettors and licensed books coexist. For firms like Jump that have traded on sportsbooks and exchanges abroad, the United States patchwork complicates a liquidity strategy that relies on broad access and consistent rules.

Regulators are being pulled into court

The tug-of-war is not limited to New York. Legal pressure is also building on the federal side as firms seek clarity on licensing and access. Fantasy operator Sleeper Markets sued the CFTC and its acting chair, alleging the agency interfered with its application to become a futures commission merchant while a competitor advanced. The complaint, outlined in Sleeper Markets sues Commodity Futures Trading Commission over alleged license interference, frames the issue as a fairness and transparency problem in an emerging sector where timing can confer durable advantages.

Taken together with Kalshi’s litigation, the cases underscore how regulatory decisions—formal and informal—are shaping market structure before the category is fully defined. That uncertainty can weigh on liquidity providers evaluating counterparty risk, onboarding costs and the durability of venues they support.

Capital, leadership and a race to legitimacy

Even as the legal battlefield expands, the buildout continues. Kalshi has been adding senior leadership and backing to scale the platform, naming former Uber finance executive Saurabh Tejwani as its first chief financial officer. In Kalshi appoints former Uber executive as first Chief Financial Officer, Tejwani likened the task to Uber’s expansion playbook, emphasizing dealmaking, international growth and strategic finance as the exchange eyes optionality, including a potential public listing down the line. The company has also raised fresh capital, lifting its valuation and positioning it to invest in compliance, data rights and market operations.

Competition is intensifying. Polymarket has pursued partnerships and visibility, and both exchanges announced a multi-year data and rights arrangement with the NHL as noted in the New York suit coverage. The tie-ups point to a world in which official data, branding and distribution become core to attracting mainstream users, regulators and institutional liquidity alike.

Brand posture still matters. Kalshi has navigated perception challenges, including criticism of job ads that referenced sportsbooks despite the company’s public insistence it is not in gambling. That tension illustrates the balancing act as platforms court both finance-savvy traders and sports fans while trying to stay inside regulatory guardrails.

What Jump’s entry signals about the next phase

For market makers, event contracts are a familiar puzzle. They behave like binary options with settlement driven by news and outcomes rather than earnings or rates. Adding professional liquidity can tighten pricing and lift volumes, improving the user experience and making hedging or speculation more efficient. Jump’s likely advantage lies in market microstructure, speed and risk warehousing across correlated events, especially around playoffs or tentpole championships.

But the path is not purely technical. The viability of these products hinges on stable rules, credible surveillance and clean resolution. State regulators have drawn bright lines in places like Nevada, and federal oversight is evolving through lawsuits and staff action. Exchanges are staffing up and striking rights deals to gain legitimacy. New entrants are testing legal boundaries, sometimes in court.

Against that backdrop, Jump’s participation is a vote of confidence that event markets can mature into a durable asset class adjacent to, but distinct from, traditional sportsbooks. If liquidity firms show up and stay, spreads could compress, depth could improve and price signals could become more informative. If the jurisdiction fight drags or fractures access by state, liquidity could fragment and undercut the network effects these exchanges need.

Either way, the next leg will be decided as much in courtrooms and commission meetings as on trading screens. The stakes for platforms, regulators and traders are the same: whether sports events can be packaged, supervised and traded like any other economic outcome—at scale and in the open—or whether the product remains confined to the gambling lane with all the constraints that come with it.