The 2026 FIFA World Cup, hosted across North America, has drawn to a close, with Spain claiming the coveted trophy after a thrilling extra-time victory over Argentina, marking their return to glory after 16 years. Yet, the reverberations of this global football spectacle extended far beyond the pitch. In an unexpected turn, prediction markets have emerged as a significant, albeit “invisible,” winner of the World Cup.
During the tournament, prediction markets witnessed an unprecedented surge, attracting billions of dollars in trading volume and, for the first time, noticeably eroding the market share of traditional sports betting giants. Simultaneously, the competitive landscape within the prediction market sector itself underwent rapid differentiation. Kalshi, bolstered by its robust regulatory compliance and substantial capital backing, consistently shattered trading records, solidifying its dominant position. In contrast, while Polymarket achieved rapid expansion, it grappled with mounting pressures from regulatory scrutiny, business model challenges, and intensified competition.
World Cup Fuels Billions in Prediction Market Trading
The World Cup served as a pivotal catalyst, propelling prediction markets into the mainstream consciousness. As hundreds of millions of global fans eagerly followed match outcomes, prediction trading surrounding team victories, championship contenders, and other event-specific scenarios experienced a dramatic uptick, drawing substantial capital and a burgeoning user base into this burgeoning financial arena.
According to data from Dune, the cumulative nominal trading volume in prediction markets during the 2026 World Cup, spanning June 11 to July 19, reached an astounding tens of billions of dollars. June alone saw nominal trading volumes exceed $49.95 billion, with July, to date, recording $36.37 billion in transactions. This represents a significant leap compared to May’s nominal trading volume of approximately $30 billion.
Undeniably, the World Cup acted as a powerful engine for prediction market growth, dramatically accelerating the influx of both capital and users into the space.
Examining the performance of two industry leaders, Kalshi and Polymarket, Dune data reveals that Kalshi’s sports sector accounted for a staggering 80.7% of its weekly nominal trading volume. Similarly, sports-related transactions on Polymarket constituted 46.3% of its volume. Notably, on Kalshi’s platform alone, prediction contracts tied to the “World Cup Champion” generated over $1.2 billion in trading volume, establishing a new record for a single prediction market on the platform.
In essence, by harnessing the immense global appeal of the World Cup, prediction markets successfully engaged mainstream sports consumers on an unprecedented scale, effectively transitioning from niche crypto and financial circles to a broader public audience.
Prediction Markets Capture 27% Share from Traditional Sports Betting
The ascendance of prediction markets has fundamentally reshaped the competitive dynamics within the sports betting industry.
For decades, traditional betting companies held an undisputed hegemony over sports wagering. However, with prediction markets gaining widespread exposure during a global event like the World Cup, their impressive user growth and transaction volumes began to capture the attention of industry incumbents. Even established American sports betting platforms, including DraftKings and FanDuel, are now actively exploring ventures into prediction market-related services.
Concurrently, the traditional betting sector is facing novel growth challenges. A report by mobile app data analytics firm Apptopia indicated that daily active users (DAU) for conventional sports betting platforms such as DraftKings, FanDuel, BetMGM, and Caesars all peaked on the fourth day of the World Cup before experiencing a subsequent decline. By the end of June, DraftKings and FanDuel’s DAU had fallen by 36% and 41% respectively from their peak levels.
In stark contrast, prediction market platforms Kalshi and Polymarket demonstrated sustained growth. As of June 30, Kalshi’s DAU had increased by 36% compared to June 15, while Polymarket saw a 12% rise. Throughout June, these two platforms collectively contributed nearly half of the new active users across six major betting applications, with Kalshi alone accounting for 38%.
Download statistics further underscored this divergence. Apptopia reported that in June, Kalshi and Polymarket together captured 78.5% of the total installations among the six sports betting platforms, signalling a clear trend: new users are increasingly opting for prediction markets as their initial entry point into wagering. More significantly, while the proportion of users simultaneously engaging with DraftKings and Kalshi rose during the World Cup, there was no parallel increase in users migrating from Kalshi to traditional sports betting platforms. This suggests that traditional betting enthusiasts are exploring prediction markets, but prediction market users are not, in turn, flocking to conventional betting.
This evolving trend is further corroborated by shifts in market share. Based on public data from the World Cup’s inaugural month, research firm H2 Gambling Capital estimated that prediction market trading volume accounted for approximately 27% of the total legal sports betting volume in the United States, a substantial increase from roughly 9% at the beginning of the year.
It is important to note that a direct, apples-to-apples comparison between prediction markets and traditional sports betting is challenging due to differing transaction statistical methodologies, and traditional betting companies have yet to release their latest internal data for the World Cup period.
Nevertheless, the World Cup has undeniably emerged as a critical inflection point for prediction markets. It not only facilitated large-scale user education for these platforms but is also propelling the sports wagering industry into a new, more competitive phase. The enduring challenge, however, remains whether the significant traffic and engagement generated by the World Cup can be successfully converted into a loyal, long-term user base for prediction markets.
Kalshi Extends Dominance as Polymarket Navigates Headwinds
Beneath the surface of the World Cup’s massive traffic influx, the competitive landscape of prediction markets has quietly undergone a significant transformation.
Analyzing July’s data, The Block reports that the combined monthly trading volume for Kalshi and Polymarket (including Polymarket US) reached approximately $257.6 billion in June, marking a robust 25.4% increase from May’s $205.4 billion. Within this, Kalshi alone accounted for over $147.05 billion, while Polymarket and Polymarket US collectively recorded $110.55 billion. This signifies Kalshi’s trading scale exceeding Polymarket’s by more than 1.3 times. This is a notable reversal, considering that in the same period in 2025, Polymarket held a distinct advantage, with its monthly trading volume being 4.6 times that of Kalshi.
Furthermore, in terms of market share, Kalshi currently commands approximately 73.2% of the prediction market trading volume, whereas Polymarket and its US operations together hold around 26.8%. This contrasts sharply with July of last year, when Polymarket’s market share briefly touched 36.7%, indicating a clear erosion of its position over the past year.
The disparity in user growth between the two platforms is also widening. Kalshi informed CNBC that it acquired an impressive 3 million new users during the entire World Cup. In stark contrast, Dune data tracking shows that while Polymarket’s cumulative unique users have surpassed 3.09 million, it only added approximately 274,000 new users in June and July.
On the capital market front, the valuation gap is similarly expanding. In June of this year, the Financial Times reported that Kalshi is seeking a new funding round, potentially elevating its valuation to $40 billion, with completion anticipated as early as the third quarter. Polymarket, by comparison, is currently valued at approximately $15 billion.
This confluence of data points unequivocally signals a reversal in the prediction market’s competitive hierarchy. Leveraging its strong regulatory compliance, strategic institutional partnerships, and established mainstream market access, Kalshi is steadily cementing its leadership position. Polymarket, despite its initial rapid ascent driven by a crypto-native model and a global user base, now faces a multi-faceted array of challenges—including regulatory hurdles, business model pressures, and user trust issues—as the industry matures into a phase of scaled competition.
Firstly, regulatory pressure has become a significant impediment to Polymarket’s global expansion. Recent periods have seen markets such as France, the Czech Republic, and South Korea initiate reviews of Polymarket, with some regions even imposing blocking measures. In the crucial US market, Polymarket’s recent application for a US futures license signals its intent to re-establish compliant operations, yet the outcome remains uncertain.
Secondly, brand trust has emerged as a fresh challenge. The Wall Street Journal recently reported allegations that Polymarket engaged paid content creators to produce trading videos on fabricated websites and disseminated misleading “profit case studies” via social media, with some showcased high returns being questioned as potentially unauthentic.
Furthermore, Polymarket recently increased its sports market transaction fee rate from 3% to 5% and simultaneously reduced market maker rebates from 25% to 15%. This adjustment, implemented without prior official announcement—instead, direct updates to the fees page and relevant documentation—ignited considerable dissatisfaction among certain users, particularly sports traders and high-frequency participants.
A more profound controversy revolves around the potential POLY token. For an extended period, segments of the community eagerly anticipated Polymarket’s launch of a platform token, viewing airdrops as a crucial reward for early adopters. Previously, Polymarket had hinted at a token launch and airdrop post-US operations restart, and its parent company, Blockratize Inc., even filed trademark registration applications for “POLY” and “$POLY,” further fueling market expectations.
However, a recent statement from a former Polymarket team member indicated that the official token would not be launched in the short term and might necessitate a considerably longer wait. This news further intensified community skepticism. Some users contend that Polymarket leveraged token launch expectations to attract early users and boost trading activity, but the protracted delay in delivery has eroded community trust.
From a capital strategy perspective, the community perceives Polymarket’s trajectory as increasingly aligning with traditional financial models. Since 2025, Polymarket has completed multiple rounds of substantial equity financing, including a $2 billion strategic investment from ICE. This contrasts with the crypto project paradigm, which typically relies on community incentives and token economics; Polymarket’s future may lean more towards an IPO to realize its valuation.
Nevertheless, from a longer-term vantage point, the competition within prediction markets is far from settled. With a growing number of platforms, including Robinhood, Charles Schwab, and Hyperliquid, entering this dynamic sector, the future competitive landscape of prediction markets will transcend mere volume, shifting towards a holistic contest centered on user acquisition, regulatory prowess, robust financial infrastructure, and comprehensive ecosystem development.
The World Cup may have crowned its champion, but the new round of competition in prediction markets has only just commenced.
(The above content is an authorized excerpt and reproduction from our partner PANews. Original Article Link)
Disclaimer: This article is provided for market information purposes only. All content and views are for reference only and do not constitute investment advice, nor do they represent BlockTempo’s views and positions. Investors should make their own decisions and transactions. The author and BlockTempo will not bear any responsibility for direct or indirect losses incurred by investors’ transactions.
