The 5 reasons soccer won't increase in popularity after the world cup is over. 1. The flopping. This goes against the soul of every American. We value grit, toughness and basically not being a pussy. 2. The clock. No one wants to get to the end of a game and have no clue when it's over. Just stop & start the clock when you need to, like sane people. 3. Offsides. Just put a line out there like everyone else. This floating line you have makes the game unwatchable. It's like a built in, anti-excitement glitch you manufactured for your game. 4. Red cards. What a stupid rule that you automatically get kicked out for the next game for getting one. I can understand suspending someone after a league review of something you did that was horrible. But to automatically get suspended because of what a ref saw at full speed is stupid. 5. Ties. In America we call it kissing your sister, cause that's the same feeling you get after a tie. Pure disgust. In soccer, it seems like the result you prefer most. Play til you have a winner.

Huge win for @Kalshi (and all PMs) in the 3rd Circuit. This is the first appellate ct to weigh in and sets important precedent for related litigation. Key takeaways: 1)CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction over swaps 2)Sports event contracts are swaps 3)Enforcing state gambling laws would undermine the purpose of the CEA (avoiding inconsistent patchwork of rules). Notable quotes below: “The Act preempts state laws that directly interfere with swaps traded on DCMs. Kalshi’s sports-related event contracts are swaps traded on a CFTC-licensed DCM, so the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction.” “Kalshi self-certified compliance with the applicable laws and regulations, so those event contracts were presumptively approved under federal law. See 7 U.S.C. § 7a-2(c)(1). To date, the CFTC has not determined that Kalshi’s sports-related event contracts are contrary to the public interest.” "The Act provides that the relevant event or occurrence need only be “associated with a potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence.” 7 U.S.C. § 1a(47)(A), (A)(ii). As the dissent concedes, “[a] plain reading of the Act’s text suggests that Kalshi’s sports-event contracts fit comfortably within the statutory definition." Dissent at 2. That is correct. The outcome of a sports event certainly can be associated with a potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence….Because Kalshi’s sports-related event contracts are traded on a CFTC-licensed DCM and depend on event outcomes associated with economic consequences, they fit within the Act’s definition of “swaps” subject to the CFTC’s jurisdiction." “Kalshi has demonstrated a reasonable chance of success in showing that the text of the Act preempts otherwise applicable state laws that purport to regulate sports-related event contracts on CFTC-licensed DCMs.” “Because Kalshi’s sports-related event contracts are swaps under the Act, the District Court properly defined the scope of field preemption as the regulation of trading on a DCM (a form of futures trading) rather than as gambling (a broader and traditionally state-regulated field). “Allowing New Jersey to enforce its gambling laws and state constitution would create an obstacle to executing the Act because such state enforcement would prohibit Kalshi, which operates a licensed DCM under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC, from offering its sports-related event contracts in New Jersey. This state regulation is exactly the patchwork that Congress replaced wholecloth by creating the CFTC. Because that prohibition directly conflicts with the full purposes and objectives of the Act, we need not determine whether it would be impossible for Kalshi to comply with both state and federal regulations.”