Share This Article
Prediction markets in Europe have moved to the very centre of the gambling law debate, after nine national regulators issued a rare joint statement warning against unlicensed platforms just as the 2026 FIFA World Cup gets underway.
The authorities of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland pledged coordinated action against prominent prediction market operators, arguing that their event contracts amount to unlicensed gambling and pose serious risks to players. With several markets already blocked at national level and the tournament expected to trigger a major betting surge, this development sets the tone for how prediction markets in Europe will be treated for the rest of the year.
A joint statement by nine gambling regulators
On 17 June 2026, in conjunction with the opening of the World Cup, nine European gambling regulators announced a joint initiative targeting unlicensed prediction market platforms across the continent. The statement is significant precisely because such coordinated declarations are uncommon, and because it brings together some of the most influential authorities in the region, including Italy’s ADM, France’s ANJ, Spain’s DGOJ, Germany’s GGL and Switzerland’s Gespa.
The regulators warn that the expected increase in gambling around the World Cup is being amplified by the rising popularity of prediction markets, particularly among young adults. In their view, these platforms combine visibility, accessibility and a viral dynamic that together create a powerful addictive cycle. Moreover, they stress that unlicensed operators offer round-the-clock access without the safeguards required of licensed operators, such as deposit and time limits or robust age verification.
The authorities also flagged a series of concrete risks associated with unlicensed prediction markets, namely:
- exposure to illegality, given the absence of a local licence;
- the blocking of player funds and the difficulty of recovering them;
- fraud through insider information on the outcome of events; and
- financial volatility that can leave consumers heavily exposed.
Importantly, the statement does not stop at operators. The regulators expressly urged sports federations, leagues and teams to verify that a prediction market platform is lawful in the relevant jurisdiction before entering into any partnership. That message lands at a sensitive moment, since Gibraltar-licensed ADI Predictstreet is the officially licensed prediction market partner of the World Cup, while other high-profile platforms have pursued aggressive sponsorship strategies without holding local gambling licences.
Why prediction markets in Europe raise gambling law concerns
The core legal question is deceptively simple: does prediction markets offering constitute gambling? Prediction markets allow users to take positions on the likelihood of future sporting, political or economic events, with payouts depending on the outcome. Functionally, betting on which national team will lift the World Cup looks very much like a wager, even if the product is presented as a financial contract.
This is where the transatlantic divergence becomes striking. In the United States, there is an ongoing dispute over whether prediction markets should be treated as gambling or as regulated financial instruments, with the CFTC consulting on how sports-related event contracts should be classified. In Europe, by contrast, the vertical is broadly viewed as an unlicensed gambling activity that falls squarely within national licensing regimes. As a result, a platform that is lawful in one jurisdiction can be plainly illegal in another, and the qualification analysis must be run market by market.
This fragmentation is the defining feature of gambling regulation across the EU. There is no pan-European gambling licence, and each Member State sets its own rules, its own regulator and its own enforcement toolkit. Consequently, prediction markets in Europe face not a single legal test but twenty-seven, a reality that the joint statement implicitly acknowledges by promoting cross-border cooperation rather than a harmonised standard.
A wave of national enforcement
The joint declaration did not emerge in a vacuum. On the contrary, it consolidates a patchwork of national measures that have intensified over recent weeks.
Spain’s gambling regulator, the DGOJ, ordered internet service providers on 26 May 2026 to block both Kalshi and Polymarket while it investigates whether their products constitute unlicensed gambling under Spanish law. France, the Netherlands and Portugal have taken comparable geoblocking steps, while Germany’s authority is reviewing advertising linked to prediction markets. In addition, the Netherlands has characterised Polymarket as illegal gambling, Hungary has blocked access to the platform, and Romania blacklisted it amid a surge in election betting. Portugal had earlier ordered Polymarket out following its national election.
Not every European jurisdiction is moving in the same direction, however. Malta has signalled that it is actively exploring prediction markets as an emerging field, which is consistent with its long-standing role as a hub for online gambling operators. That tension between restriction and experimentation is precisely what makes prediction markets in Europe such a complex compliance challenge.
For a broader view of how authorities are tightening their grip on cross-border offers, you can read my earlier analysis on illegal online gambling advertising in Europe, which traces the same trajectory towards coordinated, infrastructure-focused enforcement.
The situation in Italy
Italy offers one of the clearest illustrations of how prediction markets in Europe are being treated as gambling rather than finance. The Italian regulator, the Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (ADM), takes the view that prediction markets on real-world events — whether political, sporting or financial — fall within the definition of unauthorised gambling, an activity that in Italy may only be offered under a local gambling law license. On this basis, ADM ordered the blackout of Polymarket’s Italian portal by directorial decree in October 2025. The measure was then partially revisited on 15 December 2025: prompted by the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio (TAR Lazio), ADM adopted a hybrid solution under which the platform became viewable again, while users remained barred from actively trading, pending clarification of whether such services should be qualified as gambling.
Several other features reinforce this restrictive line. In particular, Italy’s long-standing prohibition on betting on political events alone excludes a significant portion of these platforms’ offer, while the use of stablecoins on unlicensed venues raises additional anti-money laundering concerns. At the same time, the legal challenge brought by Polymarket points to a genuinely unsettled question: how should the law treat trading where the user pays no stake to the organiser and the organiser pays no reward in return — a structure that current Italian gambling rules do not expressly address. Until the courts or the legislator settle that point, the practical reality is that, as a signatory of the nine-regulator statement, Italy will keep ADM’s assertive enforcement posture firmly in place throughout the World Cup. I have covered the broader tightening of Italian gambling enforcement in my recent article on the new Italian gambling top-up rules.
The commercial backdrop: World Cup, Kalshi, Polymarket and Messi
The regulatory pushback is not happening in isolation; it is a direct response to the explosive commercial growth of the sector. Trading volume across prediction markets reached roughly USD 8.6 billion in April 2026, with Kalshi overtaking the crypto-native Polymarket in market share, and both platforms attracting fresh funding at multibillion-dollar valuations. According to a Bernstein analysis cited in industry coverage, the World Cup alone could add between USD 5 billion and USD 10 billion in trading volume.
The marketing has been equally bold. Kalshi became an official sponsor of the Argentine Football Association and fronted the partnership with a paid Instagram post on Lionel Messi’s account, a move that almost certainly accelerated the regulators’ decision to act. Therefore, the joint statement should be read not only as a consumer-protection measure but also as a warning shot to the sports ecosystem that is increasingly tempted by prediction market sponsorship money.
What this means for operators, sports bodies and platforms
From a practical standpoint, the implications of this coordinated stance are significant and immediate.
- For prediction market operators, the message is that targeting European consumers without a local licence carries real enforcement risk, including IP blocking, payment restrictions and potential sanctions. A US registration or a single offshore licence will not, by itself, legitimise access to European players.
- For sports federations, leagues and clubs, due diligence on the legality of a prediction market partner is now effectively mandatory. Signing a sponsorship deal with an unlicensed platform may expose the rights holder to reputational and, in some jurisdictions, regulatory consequences.
- For licensed gambling operators and affiliates, the convergence of advertising, betting integrity and player-protection scrutiny means that any association with prediction markets should be assessed carefully against local rules.
- For digital platforms and payment providers, the established pattern of intermediary liability in European gambling enforcement suggests they may be called upon to restrict access and block flows linked to unlicensed operators.
In my view, the qualification of event contracts will be the decisive battleground. Until courts and regulators settle whether these products are gambling, financial instruments, or a hybrid that escapes both regimes, operators should expect continued legal uncertainty and a markedly more assertive enforcement posture.
Conclusions
The nine-regulator statement confirms that prediction markets in Europe have graduated from a niche curiosity to a front-line regulatory priority. The World Cup provided the catalyst, but the underlying issue is structural: a fast-growing, globally marketed product that does not fit neatly within national licensing frameworks built for traditional betting. As enforcement coordination deepens and more authorities open investigations, the pressure on unlicensed platforms will only increase.
For operators and their commercial partners, the safest course is to treat prediction markets as gambling unless and until a given jurisdiction clearly says otherwise, and to build their compliance and sponsorship strategies accordingly. This is a space that will continue to evolve quickly, and I will keep monitoring how European regulators translate this joint statement into concrete enforcement.
You can compare gambling rules, including the treatment of betting and emerging products, across almost 50 jurisdictions in the DLA Piper Gambling Laws of the World guide.
If you found this analysis on prediction markets in Europe useful, you may also be interested in my articles on the EU iGaming tax and the new Italian gambling top-up rules.