Nationwide Survey Results
Voters Support Prediction Markets
Prediction markets are supported in their current form, with current regulations, by a significant majority of the electorate. Whether voters choose to participate or not, nearly nine-out-of-ten voters (89%) agree with the statement, “Even if I don’t participate in these types of markets, I believe all Americans should have access and the option to decide for themselves.” Voters feel strongly about this, with a majority (54%) in STRONG agreement.
Furthermore, a large majority of voters (70%) believe Americans should be able to invest in specific outcomes, like the change in the price of gold, the outcome of an election or agriculture futures. This support is bipartisan, with 75% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats supporting prediction markets, and spans all income brackets. Even among those who have never participated in a prediction market, support is strong at 65%.
Markets Are An Investment; Should Be Regulated Federally
Voters nearly universally view the purchase of stocks, mutual funds and participation in commodities markets as a “financial investment” (89%) over viewing these activities as “gambling” (11%). Because of this belief, voters overwhelmingly say “Federal Government Regulators” should regulate these activities (79%) rather than “State Gaming Commissions” (21%). As shown below, this sentiment stretches across party identification, all ethnic groups, and among investors and non-investors alike.
Voters Distinguish Sports Prediction Markets From Gambling
The sentiment that investments in markets are not the same as gambling extends to sports prediction markets, specifically, too. Majorities of about 6-in-10 voters agree with the following:
“Prediction markets are aggregating information from thousands of individuals to produce a real-time probability of a sports outcome and should be considered analysis more than gambling” (63%).
“Participating in a sports prediction market requires knowledge and analysis similar to financial investing, rather than chance-based gambling” (60%).
“Sports prediction markets create a public good by producing forecasts useful to the media, leagues, and owners” (59%).
Consumers Believe They Would Be Hurt/Disadvantaged
Even before hearing specific arguments about regulation, voters are twice as likely to see state regulation as a “power play by states to get more money and limit innovation” (67%) than they are to believe that “exchanges, particularly when made online, are like gambling and should be regulated at the state level” (33%). In addition to being unnecessary, voters strongly agree that themselves, as consumers, would be the ones hurt by shifting regulation to state gaming commissions. As shown below, consistently large majorities agree middle- and lower-income households would be disadvantaged by the change, regulatory changes would cause confusion, and changing to state gaming commissions would lead to inefficiencies and corruption.
Methodology
Axis Research conducted a poll of 1,219 voters nationwide, distributed proportionate to the electorate regionally and in terms of gender, age, ethnicity and political affiliation. Responses were collected online using a blend of panels for the greatest reach and to reduce bias from September 18-23, 2025.
The margin of error on these results is ±2.9.