Infiniti Intelligence Hourly Briefing — Oct 11, 2026 · 5:54 AM ET

Polymarket adds a Rangers partnership

Madison Square Garden Sports has announced Polymarket as an official partner of the Rangers, according to gamblerss.com. The agreement does not include the Knicks.

The announcement follows Kalshi’s deal with the Chicago Blackhawks two weeks earlier, bringing another prediction-market platform into a partnership with an NHL team.

Two platforms, two team agreements

The Rangers arrangement pairs Polymarket with Madison Square Garden Sports, while the earlier Blackhawks deal involves Kalshi. Together, the announcements show both platforms establishing commercial relationships with NHL teams.

The available material does not specify either agreement’s financial terms, duration or promotional commitments. It also does not establish whether the partnerships will affect the markets available on either platform.

What it means for prediction markets

• Team partnerships are expanding: Polymarket’s Rangers agreement follows Kalshi’s Blackhawks deal by two weeks.
• The scope is limited: The announced Polymarket partnership covers the Rangers, not the Knicks; it should not be read as a broader Madison Square Garden Sports agreement.
• Trading implications remain unspecified: The material provides no basis for concluding that either deal changes contract availability or trading conditions.

Kalshi, Polymarket and the Coalition for Prediction Markets have spent at least $3 million this year on lobbying and campaign contributions at the state and federal levels, according to an OpenSecrets analysis reported by Stateline and published on usa-today-news.com. The spending comes amid a widening dispute over whether prediction markets fall exclusively under federal derivatives regulation or must also comply with state gambling laws.

State-level spending spans both parties

Kalshi, described in the report as by far the largest prediction-market platform, has directed substantial political spending toward organizations supporting governors and attorneys general. OpenSecrets found that it contributed more than $300,000 combined to the Republican Attorneys General Association and the Democratic Attorneys General Association. In the first half of the year, it also gave $100,000 to the Republican Governors Association and $150,000 to the Democratic Governors Association.

The company has hired at least one lobbyist in 41 states, with particular attention to California and New York, according to the analysis. That footprint covers every state where prediction-market-specific legislation has been introduced. Kalshi spokesperson Dani Lever told OpenSecrets that the company supports candidates from both parties, as other regulated U.S. businesses do.

A fight over regulatory authority

Platforms argue that their contracts belong in the same regulatory category as commodity-market instruments, rather than sportsbook wagers. State lawmakers from both parties contend that the businesses bypass gambling restrictions, taxes and consumer protections, particularly through sports contracts. This summer, Kalshi’s Head of Corporate Development, Sara Slane, told lawmakers the company wanted stronger relationships with states but maintained that oversight rests with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, not state authorities.

The CFTC has four vacancies on its five-member commission, yet has vigorously asserted its jurisdiction, suing nine states that sought to regulate the industry. The Trump administration has also pursued efforts to limit state oversight. According to Stateline, Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son, holds financial stakes in both Kalshi and Polymarket. Many observers expect the U.S. Supreme Court eventually to resolve the states’ regulatory role.

Federal lobbying remains substantial

Kalshi alone spent nearly $1 million on federal lobbying in the first half of the year, OpenSecrets found. Its efforts targeted the CFTC, the White House, the Securities & Exchange Commission and both chambers of Congress.

Brad Lipton, director of the Roosevelt Institute’s corporate power and financial regulation program, told OpenSecrets that the campaign reflects a fundamental challenge to the industry’s business model. He questioned whether prediction markets could compete while complying with state law and characterized the spending as an effort to gain political leverage over weaknesses he sees in their legal position.

What it means for prediction markets

• Jurisdiction remains the central uncertainty. The dispute concerns whether federal derivatives oversight excludes state gambling regulation, with potential consequences for platform operations and contract availability.
• The spending total is broader than lobbying alone. The at least $3 million figure includes campaign contributions as well as lobbying across state and federal governments.
• Political activity does not settle the legal outcome. Kalshi’s presence in 41 states demonstrates the breadth of its advocacy, while litigation and possible Supreme Court review leave the ultimate division of regulatory authority unresolved.

Brazil has prohibited derivatives tied to sports, politics, gaming, cultural events and social outcomes, prompting Polymarket and Kalshi to shut down nationwide, according to HackerNoon. The move makes Brazil the third Latin American country to ban prediction markets, after Argentina and Colombia.

A broad restriction on event contracts

Banco Central do Brasil and the National Monetary Council issued Resolution №5,298, which establishes the prohibition, HackerNoon reported. Regulators cited investor protection, market integrity and concerns that arbitrage and speculation could damage investors and the public interest.

The decision adds to restrictions facing prediction-market operators across jurisdictions. Portuguese regulators blocked access to Polymarket earlier this year, according to HackerNoon. The platform’s own documentation lists more than 30 countries where it is blocked.

The United States presents a different regulatory conflict. Individual states have sought to restrict prediction markets, while the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has sued Arizona, Illinois, and Connecticut over restrictions on access to platforms including Polymarket and Kalshi, HackerNoon reported.

Integrity concerns extend beyond access

The report also describes questions about the reliability of settlement data. Polymarket paid $14,000 on April 6 and $20,000 on April 15 after bets on Paris temperatures exceeding specified thresholds. Both payouts followed unusual readings at a single Météo-France sensor at Charles de Gaulle Airport. Meteorologists considered natural explanations implausible; external heating, possibly from a cordless hair dryer, was the leading theory. According to HackerNoon, Polymarket changed the airport used for settlement rather than refunding losing participants.

A separate case concerns alleged misuse of confidential information. HackerNoon reported that a US Army Special Forces Master Sergeant involved in planning Operation Absolute Resolve opened a Polymarket account in December, 2025. Between December 27 and January 2, he placed roughly $33,000 in bets on a US invasion of Venezuela, Maduro’s removal by January 31 and Trump invoking the War Powers Act, winning $409,000. After Trump announced the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, the soldier allegedly sought to delete his account, saying he had lost email access. The DOJ charged him with unlawful use of confidential government information, commodities fraud, and wire fraud.

What it means for prediction markets

• Brazil’s restriction reaches multiple contract categories. The prohibition covers political and social outcomes as well as sports, gaming and cultural events.
• Access rules remain jurisdiction-specific. Brazil joins Argentina and Colombia in banning prediction markets, while US federal and state authorities are contesting regulatory control.
• Settlement integrity is a separate risk. The reported Paris temperature episode highlights how a contract’s outcome can depend on the vulnerability of its underlying data source.
• Information advantages face legal scrutiny. The DOJ case concerns alleged use of confidential government information—not merely a successful forecast.