Calling a bet a “financial contract” doesn’t magically make it stop being gambling. If I put money on whether Arsenal wins tomorrow, I’m gambling. If I put money on a contract that pays me if Arsenal wins tomorrow, suddenly I’m a financial-market participant? That distinction deserves serious scrutiny. But here’s where it gets interesting. The Commodity Exchange Act explicitly carves out gaming contracts, yet the law doesn’t give us a clean definition of what “gaming” actually means in this context. So what happens when the same underlying bet can be packaged as either a wager or a financial contract? That’s not a loophole we should casually ignore. And yet, I ultimately agree with the argument in the clip. Because whether we think sports prediction contracts are gambling is almost irrelevant. The real question is whether the law says they are. If Congress left that line this blurry, states and financial platforms can keep fighting over who gets jurisdiction. At that point, this stops being a sportsbook vs prediction market debate. It becomes a question of what the law actually permits. And honestly? That sounds like a Supreme Court question.