Polymarket CEO Attacks Sportsbook Model as a “Scam” in Axios Interview

He argued that the dominant operators, specifically the duopoly of DraftKings and FanDuel, rely on predatory tactics that punish skilled players while stifling innovation.

The Mechanics of the “Rip Off”

Coplan’s central argument is that traditional sportsbooks operate less like open markets and more like casinos designed to ensure the house always wins. He stated that these companies “all rip off the consumer” by offering poor odds and actively suppressing successful participants.

In the current US market, operators utilize sophisticated data profiling to identify “sharp” bettors, players who consistently win. Once identified, these accounts are often limited, meaning the operator caps the amount of money the user can wager to negligible amounts. Coplan criticized this practice of “taking action against winning bettors,” noting that the industry effectively bans skill.

Recent regulatory data supports this assertion. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission recently reported that approximately 0.64% of players in the state are subject to wager limits designed to prevent them from generating significant profits.

Coplan contrasted this model with the prediction market approach. He likened the disruption to the transportation sector, comparing traditional sportsbooks to an old taxi cartel that overcharges customers and resists new technology, while positioning prediction markets as the rideshare alternative offering transparency and better pricing.

Regulatory “Patchwork” and the Supreme Court

Beyond the consumer experience, Coplan attacked the regulatory structure of American gambling. He described the current system as a “patchwork” of state-by-state rules that hinders broader market efficiency.

Prediction markets like Polymarket and Kalshi currently operate in a legal gray area. By classifying their offerings as “event contracts” regulated federally by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), they effectively bypass state-level gambling bans. This loophole has allowed them to offer sports-related contracts in states where traditional sports betting remains illegal.

Coplan predicted that this jurisdictional conflict will escalate to the highest level. “I think at some point the Supreme Court will settle the matter,” he said. A ruling from the High Court would determine definitively whether these financial instruments can legally function as a substitute for sports betting nationwide.

Integrity and Future Monetization

During the interview, Coplan also addressed questions regarding the integrity of sports and the financial sustainability of his platform. He hinted that Polymarket is developing internal tools to detect and prevent match-fixing or corruption. “We’ve got some stuff in the works that I think will be a great improvement on what’s existing,” he noted.

Regarding the company’s business model, Coplan acknowledged that Polymarket does not currently charge fees on trades, prioritizing growth over immediate revenue. However, he confirmed that “eventually we’re going to take a cut.”