Want to get more Covers content? Add us as a preferred source on your Google account here.
Don’t even go there.
That’s arguably the message from a major horse racing group to the federal regulator of prediction markets, as well as any exchange that would dare try to dabble in the sport of kings without permission.
- The National Thoroughbred Racing Association opposes prediction markets facilitating Kentucky Derby betting, or any other wagering on horse racing, without proper “consent,” arguing it violates federal law.
- NTRA CEO Tom Rooney says it’s laws like the Interstate Horseracing Act that govern wagering on horse racing, not federal commodities law.
- The group is concerned that prediction markets could divert betting revenue away from the regulated racing system and harm the industry financially.
Tom Rooney, president and CEO of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association (NTRA), sent a letter to the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on April 2 saying as much.
The comments were provided to the CFTC as the agency collects feedback on proposed rules for event contracts and prediction markets.
“The Commission has authority under the [Commodity Exchange Act] to prohibit contracts that are contrary to the public interest,” Rooney wrote. “Event contracts based on horseracing outcomes that circumvent the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 (the ‘IHA’) fall squarely within this category and are furthermore preempted by other federal laws.”
The NTRA’s comments come as the biggest horse race in North America, the Kentucky Derby, is a month away.
If U.S.-regulated prediction markets were to dip a toe in horse racing waters (and Polymarket has via its offshore site), offering Kentucky Derby odds would probably be a logical place to start, as it is a huge draw for bettors.
However, the Kentucky-based NTRA is no doubt aware of this (lawmakers in the association’s home state recently passed some prediction market-related restrictions for gambling operators as well).
One member of NTRA’s board of directors is a representative of Churchill Downs Inc., the chief executive of which has similarly argued that horse racing is “under a different legal paradigm than other sports offerings in the United States.”
Was combing through the comments on the CFTC’s proposed rules for prediction markets and came across a letter from the CEO of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association.
In short, their comment is “don’t even think about authorizing horse racing-related event contracts.” pic.twitter.com/mGDZ3Vv73l
— Geoff Zochodne (@GeoffZochodne) April 7, 2026
While federally regulated prediction markets may think they have the legal cover to facilitate wagering on football or baseball, and are waging battles in courtrooms across the U.S. accordingly, “horseracing occupies a unique and materially different legal space,” the NTRA’s Rooney said.
“By enacting the IHA, the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (‘HISA’), and other statutes, Congress has shown a clear intention to comprehensively regulate horseracing,” Rooney wrote. “Any so-called horseracing event contracts would circumvent the statutory framework Congress established to regulate not only interstate wagering on horseracing but horseracing writ large. Barring the Congressionally mandated consents, such contracts are barred under federal law and prohibited under the Commission’s authority governing event contracts.”
Congress enacted the IHA to “comprehensively regulate” interstate wagering on horse racing, the NTRA CEO added. In doing so, he wrote, the law preempts other “more general statutes,” including the CEA, “and governs any event contracts that may otherwise be permissible under that Act.”
“As federal courts have consistently held, the IHA exclusively controls not just parimutuel wagering on horseracing, but any conceivable form of ‘wagering’ on those races,” Rooney said. “Horseracing event contracts fall under this purview.”
Permission betting slips
There is a possible path for prediction markets to offer horse racing-related betting markets, but the NTRA noted the IHA has several specific entities that need to give their “consent” first, such as the host track.
“To date, no racing association or commission has provided consent for any event contract,” Rooney wrote. “Indeed, following this federal requirement, no [prediction market operator] has offered a horserace-based event contract in the United States.”
One of the big concerns for the NTRA is money. As noted in recent prediction market news, federally regulated prediction markets are currently floating above state-level regulation (Nevada excepted), and are therefore avoiding state-level sports wagering taxes on their fee revenue.
And that’s the bottom line
The NTRA, a broad coalition of horse racing “interests,” including horseplayers and track operators, doesn’t want to see its industry take a financial hit from prediction markets.
As Rooney noted in his letter to the CFTC, horse racing interests rely “heavily” on funding from the gambling that happens on races via pari-mutuel wagering pools.
“Congress designed the IHA specifically to ensure that wagering activity remains connected to the regulated racing ecosystem,” Rooney wrote. “If predictive markets were allowed to list contracts on horseracing outcomes without complying with the IHA’s consent provisions, these markets would divert wagering activity away from authorized systems. Such an outcome would undermine the carefully balanced regulatory structure Congress established and could cause substantial economic harm to the horseracing industry.”
This article originally appeared on Covers.com, read the full article here and view our best betting sites or check out our top sportsbook promos.
