Match-Fixing in Sport

Comparative Studies from Australia, Japan, Korea and Beyond

Stacey Steele, Hayden Opie

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9780367406905
• eBook ISBN: 9781351855655
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Law
• Subtopic: Media & Entertainment Law
• Index: Law

Match-fixing represents a greater potential threat to the integrity of sport than doping. It has been linked to organised crime, illegal drugs and money-laundering. Law enforcement and sporting authorities are struggling to establish legal and regulatory responses to this emerging threat, particularly in light of cross-border internet gambling.

This book examines match-fixing and the legal responses to it in three key Asian sporting nations: Australia, Japan and Korea. It explores the significance of legal, regulatory and cultural differences, and draws lessons in terms of best practice and enforcement for legal and sporting authorities around the world. Including key insights from players, the betting industry, law enforcement and prosecution authorities, it discusses the strengths and weakness of current anti-corruption strategies in the three jurisdictions.

Match-Fixing in Sport: Comparative Studies from Australia, Japan, Korea and Beyond offers important insights for all students and scholars with an interest in sport studies, law, criminology and Asian studies.

Part I

Conceptualising match-fixing

Chapter 1

Comparing approaches to match-fixing in sport

Revisiting perceptions and definitions

Hayden Opie and Stacey Steele

Introduction: Australia, Japan and Korea in regional and international match-fixing landscapes

The chapters in this volume analyse match-fixing in sport in Australia, Japan, Korea and beyond. Match-fixing may be described as the manipulation of an outcome or contingency of a sports competition by improper means; but there is no universally accepted definition, as this volume demonstrates.¹ The volume emphasises legal and regulatory responses to the threats that match-fixing presents. It also includes important perspectives from players,² the betting industry,³ law enforcement⁴ and prosecution authorities.⁵ The fight against match-fixing beyond Australia, Japan and Korea is examined through analysis of international typologies for criminalising match-fixing and regulating sports betting,⁶ as well as exploring the scope for the Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions (‘Convention’)⁷ to serve as a model for reform.⁸ In recognition of the dynamic environment of match-fixing in the Asian region and beyond, the volume concludes with analysis of some potential future challenges, including whether attributes such as gender have an influence on match-fixing, and the emergence of e-sports which have a strong following among younger generations, particularly in Asian jurisdictions such as Korea.⁹

The approach adopted in this volume of combining analysis of three jurisdictions and providing individual, in-depth chapters devoted to each jurisdiction, helps to avoid the pitfalls of a bilateral or side-by-side examination which tends to highlight one or the other jurisdiction as an outlier on any given issue. As the chapters in this volume show, there are many commonalities between the issues faced in these jurisdictions. Australia, Japan and Korea are democracies with modern, free market economies. Each nation has well organised professional sports leagues, successfully hosts major international sports competitions and has a population that enthusiastically follows national and international sport. Gambling – sports betting in particular – varies in popularity across the three nations, and the extent to which betting on sports is lawful in each of them differs considerably. In recent years, both Australia and Korea have enacted laws to specifically criminalise match-fixing in response to growing international concern and domestic match-fixing scandals. Japan remains more cautious about enacting laws which target match-fixing across a wide range of sports and is less touched by match-fixing scandals than Australia and Korea. Further, the tradition in sumo of ninjō, or losing compassionately, helps to support the argument that match-fixing should remain the purview of sporting authorities and not law enforcement, as suggested by Kawai in this volume.¹⁰ This position will continue to come under pressure, however, as Japan prepares to host major international sports events in the men’s Rugby World Cup in 2019 and the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2020. Moreover, recent events suggest that Japan and Japanese players are not immune to match-fixing scandals.¹¹

This chapter places the responses of Australia, Japan and Korea within global debates, and regional and international contexts. In particular, the absence of a generally accepted definition of match-fixing at an international level, and even within national jurisdictions such as Australia, is problematic for transnational sports competitions played under the criminal and other laws and regulations of various jurisdictions. The absence of an accepted definition also raises concerns due to the lack of consistency in the rules of sport promulgated by different sport governing bodies at international and national levels. The effectiveness of even the best national frameworks will continue to be impaired unless they are adapted to international mechanisms which help to build consensus about what it means to fix a match. The chapter also considers the roles of key fixers, a number of whom operate from bases in Asia, reflecting the focus of this volume on betting-related match-fixing.¹² Internet-based sports betting makes betting with operators located outside of Australia, Japan and Korea possible; such betting is illegal within all three jurisdictions and presents difficulties for detection and enforcement. Modern communications also enable those who organise match-fixing to operate internationally which forces law enforcement agencies to seek the assistance of their counterparts in other jurisdictions to gather evidence and extradite suspects.

What is match-fixing?

Conceptualising match-fixing: some thoughts on terminology and contexts

This section examines some colloquial meanings of ‘match-fixing’ and the types of actors which may be involved in fixing. The act of fixing may determine (1) who wins or loses a sporting competition or (2) the happening of a contingency within a sporting competition. Depending on the context, the term ‘match-fixing’ may encompass both or only the former. The term ‘spot-fixing’ is often used to describe the fixing of contingencies and can include ‘point shaving’ which describes fixing the winning margin – a margin smaller than would otherwise be possible. Spot-fixing may also include ‘the time and rate of scoring, the score at certain times, the occurrence of particular events such as who scores first [and] the number of penalties awarded’.¹³ The use of the term ‘match-fixing’ is deeply entrenched and, along with spot-fixing, is used in this volume. Even the term ‘match-fixing’ itself is not universally accepted or used, however. The term ‘manipulation of sports competitions’ is used, but not necessarily exclusively, in the Convention and some policy documents¹⁴ and research documents¹⁵ emanating from Europe, for example.

Match-fixing’s greatest threat to the integrity of sport occurs when it is linked to betting.¹⁶ Some commentators argue that the contemporary increase in fixing is driven by developments in the betting industry.¹⁷ Perhaps the most common form of match-fixing is deliberate underperformance by one or more players in a sporting competition. Fixing may also be committed, however, by an umpire, referee, judge or other match official who unfairly favours a player or team. In an extraordinary incident in England, for example, a security guard was bribed to facilitate turning off the lights for a night game of football, forcing it to be abandoned, with the intention of corrupting illegal betting markets in Malaysia.¹⁸ The people who engage in such behaviour are almost universally referred to as ‘fixers’.

Intermediaries are one step removed from fixers. Intermediaries arrange for players or other fixers to commit the fix, including by obtaining a fixer’s willingness to participate, conveying instructions and making payment. They may also place bets on behalf of other people involved in the fix. Various terms describe these intermediaries including ‘brokers’ in Korea (see Yeun and others in this volume), ‘runners’ in South-East Asia and other places¹⁹ and ‘facilitators’ in Australian legislation (see Opie and Lim in this volume). In many places, these intermediaries are also referred to simply as ‘fixers’.

A third and overarching role is filled by those people who conceive and plan the fix. These people have connections to those players (and others) who can commit the fix or to people in the sport who can act as the intermediaries to facilitate it. This third group will also have the connections necessary to arrange finance for the fix. Yeun in this volume refers to such people as ‘financiers’. They are also commonly called fixers,²⁰ but are distinguished by the higher level in the fix at which they operate from other so-called fixers. People in this group may be protected by organised crime or corrupt government officials, or even be members of organised crime gangs themselves.²¹ Betting operators (bookmakers) may also be involved in conceiving and planning a fix, although as a general matter betting operators are more likely to be victims of a successful fix.²²

A fourth role may be filled by the financers of the fix. Usually, they will be a wealthy gambler, a betting syndicate or organised crime gang.²³ The prospect of terrorist groups organising and financing match-fixing and associated betting to fund their activities has been recognised too.²⁴ Financiers stand to gain the greatest monetary rewards from fixes and are usually the least visible party involved.

These various typical roles for participants in match-fixing may be further divided for complex fixes or they may be combined. The third and fourth roles identified above, for example, are sometimes combined in Korea as suggested by Yeun and Park in this volume. Further, so called lone-wolf players or match officials may bet on game results or contingencies which they fix by their own actions without any involvement of others.²⁵

The motivations for engaging in fixing by each type of participant and even amongst certain types of participants are numerous and varied. Money is a key motivation, but rarely the only one, and financial gain does not explain why some people and sports appear to be more susceptible than others.²⁶ Lower levels of competition are generally recognised as more attractive to fixers...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright page
• Table of Contents
• List of tables
• Notes on contributors
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• Notes on style
• List of abbreviations
• Part I: Conceptualising match-fixing
• Part II: Legal theories, frameworks and developments
• Part III: Prevention and enforcement
• Part IV: Findings and observations
• Index