EXCLUSIVE: Sports Betting No More Addictive Than Stock Trading, Smarkets CEO Says

In a recent exclusive interview with Benzinga, Smarkets CEO Jason Trost asserted that sports betting is no more addictive than trading stocks, advocating for similar regulatory measures to protect vulnerable customers in both arenas. Trost, who has nearly 20 years of experience in the British betting exchange industry, stated, "I don't think sports betting is any more addictive than any other form of financial trading."

Trost's remarks come in the context of ongoing legal discussions regarding whether sports contracts from prediction markets, like those offered by Kalshi, should be governed by federal financial regulations or fall under state gambling laws.

He emphasized the blurred lines between gambling and investing, arguing that both activities can involve comparable financial transactions. "The debate always centers around is it gambling or is it investing? And my argument is it's both," Trost explained. He noted that the motivations behind placing trades often determine how society categorizes them, suggesting that sports betting is unfairly labeled as negative while financial trading is viewed positively.

Rather than advocating for reduced protections for individuals struggling with gambling addiction, Trost believes that the financial trading sector should implement similar safeguards. He cited an example involving Six Flags Entertainment, where the stock price dropped significantly following a tragic roller-coaster accident. Trost posed a hypothetical scenario where an individual with limited financial means borrows $1,000 from a family member to speculate on the stock market. He questioned whether brokers should evaluate the financial capability and potential risk of addiction for such clients. "I think the answer is yes, but I don't think society is ready to say yes to that," he remarked.

Research supports Trost's perspective, highlighting parallels between problematic gambling behavior and speculative trading. Key traits shared by both include chasing losses, impulsive decision-making, and a propensity for excessive risk-taking. A comprehensive review published in Frontiers in Psychiatry in 2025 analyzed 23 studies on problematic trading. The researchers cautioned against hastily labeling trading issues as gambling disorders, pointing out that trading might possess unique characteristics that warrant additional investigation.

Uttara Ananthakrishnan, a researcher at the University of Washington, has previously commented on the perception of sports gambling, noting that "a lot of people think about sports gambling as an investment." This idea further complicates the distinction between gambling and investment, suggesting a need for a more nuanced understanding of both activities.

Trost's comments reflect a growing conversation about the need for regulatory consistency across different forms of financial transactions, particularly as the lines between gambling and investing continue to blur in an increasingly digital and interconnected financial landscape. As the debate evolves, it remains to be seen how regulators will respond to these insights and whether they will implement changes to existing frameworks governing both sports betting and financial trading.