By Kevin Carpenter
Solicitor, Heatons LLP & Editor, LawInSport
(Editor’s Note: What follows is part 2 of an article written by Kevin Carpenter Solicitor, Heatons LLP & Editor, LawInSport. Part 1 appeared in SLA Vol. 10, Iss. 4)
Concerted Efforts by Trans-National Bodies on A Global Scale
INTERPOL
INTERPOL are perhaps the most important international organisation in combating match-fixing and have had considerable success with their operations.[22] They are world’s largest international police organisation with 190 member countries. Interpol’s stated role is to, “enable police around the world to work together to make the world a safer place.” They say that their high-tech infrastructure of technical and operational support helps meet the growing challenges of fighting crime in the 21st century.[23]
Under INTERPOL’s ‘Corruption’ crime area sits ‘Integrity in Sport’. This stemmed from the 10-year relationship it entered into with FIFA back in May 2011 to develop and implement a global training, education and prevention programme with a focus on regular and irregular betting as well as match-fixing.[24] An Integrity in Sport unit was then established to implement these objectives based within the INTERPOL Global Complex for Innovation in Singapore. This has led INTERPOL to be engaged by other global sports to provide assistance on match-fixing prevention at the criminal level, for instance the London 2012 JAU (as described above). As Secretary General Ronald K. Noble said in 2012, “As corruption in sports has become a global concern, our response must be global and holistic.”[25]
One of the major criminal match-fixing successes in recent times has been the four Soccer Gambling (‘SOGA’) operations. SOGA operations are coordinated by INTERPOL and have in total led to more than 7000 arrests, the closure of illegal gambling dens which handled more than US$2 billion worth of illegal bets and the seizure of nearly US$27 million in cash.[26] The latest of these operations, SOGA IV, was this past summer and timed to coincide with the end of major national football leagues across Europe, UEFA European club competitions and the UEFA European Championships (EURO 2012) held in Poland and the Ukraine. It focussed on illegal football gambling networks across Asia. SOGA IV took two months in total and successful raids were carried out by law enforcement officers across China, Macau, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam and Indonesia.[27]
As well as its hands-on crime fighting activities in the field INTERPOL has also been extremely active on the international conference circuit imparting pearls of match-fixing wisdom. One such conference was in Brazil in November where John Abbott, Chair of the INTERPOL’s Integrity in Sport Steering Group said that the five key elements for a successful strategy are: partnerships, information exchange, coordination, prevention strategies and pro-activity.[28]
ICSS
Another non-governmental body seeking to shape policy and operate on a global scale is the ICSS based in Doha, Qatar in the United Arab Emirates. The ICSS President, Mohammed Hanzab, states the ICSS’ goal to be, “a global hub of security, safety and integrity expertise, with the sole purpose of ensuring sport is equipped to overcome these challenges”.[29] They claim that they are a, “not-for-profit organisation…[with] no private or governmental interests and all profit gets re-invested into the core activities”.
One of the ICSS’ four specific areas of work is ‘Sport Integrity’. Within this area they seek to focus on three core pillars:
Protection of Sport through Training and Education;
Protection of Sport through Investigation and Intelligence; and
Protection of Sport through Enforcing Consequences in Sport.
It is evident that there seems to be a considerable amount of overlap with the work INTERPOL is already doing.
The ICSS have invested heavily in hand picking the best personnel in each of the four areas they look to work in, for instance for Sport Integrity they poached Chris Eaton from FIFA. As touched upon earlier, since taking the role of Director of Sport Integrity in May 2012 Eaton has been vocal on a number of aspects of match-fixing and the regulation of it making his views very clear. He describes criminal infiltration into football in particular as “endemic on a global level”[30] and therefore calls on governments to take collective responsibility to ensure football bodies at all levels comply with minimum business standards, such as due diligence in financial procedures, and that they maintain and practice corruption protection policies and procedures.[31] Being a former police officer himself he also has strong views on how police forces should tackle the issue, “It is the responsibility of police to routinely and actively investigate and internationally cooperate, with a primary focus on criminal disruption and crime prevention, not on prosecution and asset seizure.”[32]
Although the above action by the ICSS is all very laudable there have been a number of critics of their involvement. Declan Hill, considered the leading investigative journalist in the field, has praised Eaton for his recent statements, “He usually says interesting and truthful things. He should be listened to.”[33] Yet Hill goes on to say, “The problem is that he is working for what many people perceive as a walking oxymoron — a Qatari anti-corruption agency. Few sports commentators, after the problems in awarding the 2022 World Cup, believe that the Qataris are disinterested in their pursuit of sports corruption.”[34] There is also considerable scepticism about the motives of the ICSS given that Doha has mounted failed bids for the 2016 and 2020 Olympic Games and intends to bid again for 2024. There is a view that they are using the ICSS as a vehicle to politically lobby major SGBs and therefore garner support for future Olympic Games bids.
There will always be people more than willing to criticise any actions being taken in the Middle East in relation to sporting governance and integrity. Yet given the paucity of research in the field of match-fixing any body willing to contribute is deserving of applause. It is early days and it will be interesting to track how this unique body develops.
Is lie-detector testing a potent and legitimate weapon or a worrying infringement on the presumption of innocence?
Lie-detector (polygraph) testing is being seen as an increasingly attractive tool to use in combating match-fixing despite concerns about the validity of the methods employed. The Korean K-League introduced this to the league back in 2011 after a major scandal in the summer of the same year[35], but it has been its Asian counterparts in Singapore that have been extolling the virtues of the lie-detector on the global stage in 2012.
Winston Lee, general secretary of the Singapore Football Association, says that since compulsory lie-detector testing was introduced into the players’ code of conduct back in 2001 there has not been a repeat of the revelations prior to 2001 that several matches had been fixed.[36] Players have to sign a form agreeing to random lie-detector testing. Singapore is considered a high risk country for match-fixing due to the prevalence of illegal gambling rings using the country as a hub to attempt to influence not just Singaporean games but also others around the world.
Lie-detector testing is also being seen in Europe as actors in the fight are becoming increasingly non-plussed as to how to stop the scourge taking a grip of their national game. For instance in Bulgaria, the owner of leading club Lokomotiv Plovidiv told his players to take lie-detector tests after a surprise 1-0 defeat to bottom club Botev Vratsa raised concerns about match-fixing.[37]
Lie-detector testing will always be controversial as it can never be 100% accurate, although in recent times the opportunity to ‘cheat’ the test has become less of a risk.[38] Regardless, very tight safeguards need to be in place to ensure such evidence is safe. So long as the way in which the lie-detector testing is carried out does not infringe the accused’s human rights then it can be an important additional evidential tool. However it should not be relied upon in isolation to secure a successful sporting conviction.
Has proportionality been jettisoned for match-fixing sanctions?
In the past couple of years, and certainly in 2012, the consensus of SGBs and CAS to the sanctions meted out for match-fixing, especially for first time offenders, has been to issue life bans. This is far more severe than sanctions for doping, the ‘standard sanction’ for a first offence being two years[39], which begs the question: is this approach fair? Does it strike an appropriate balance between punishing offenders and the belief that they can redeem themselves through rehabilitation and return to their sport with their integrity restored?
To illustrate the assertion that first time match-fixers are treated more harshly than their doping counterparts here are some recent sanctions handed down:
Name Sport Role Offence Ban Appeal
Kevin Sammut Football Player Fixing an international match 10 years Extended to life by UEFA Appeals Body
Salman Butt Cricket Player Orchestrating spot-fixing by two team-mates 10 years
(5 suspended) Pending to CAS
Daniel Kollerer Tennis Player Contriving or attempting to contrive the outcome of an event Life Ban confirmed by CAS
Oleg Oriekhov Football Referee Failure to report approach Life Ban confirmed by CAS
David Savic Tennis Player Contriving or attempting to contrive the outcome of an event Life Ban confirmed by CAS
If you look at CAS decisions on match-fixing prior to 2010[40] the court gave proper consideration to the need for proportionality of the sanction. For instance, in the final paragraph of the judgment of M. v ATP Tour Inc. the court says, “General prevention…is best achieved by imposing a just (individual) sanction. If the term of ineligibility and the amount of the fine are not reduced, the punishment imposed upon the Appellant places the proportionality of the sanction in question and vitiates the preventive purposes which it intends to achieve. For this reason, the Panel deems that a reduction of the term from nine (9) months to seven (7) months is fair and appropriate.”[41]
Yet by 2012 CAS seems to have been convinced by SGBs that the only proportionate sanction is a life ban from all activities within the sport in question, focusing its attention on the deterrent effect such a ban has[42], “After careful deliberation, the Panel sees no option other than to confirm the lifetime ban imposed…the sport of tennis is extremely vulnerable to corruption as a match-fixer only needs to corrupt one player. It is therefore imperative that, once a Player gets caught, the Governing Bodies send out a clear signal to the entire tennis community that such actions are not tolerated. This Panel agrees that any sanction shorter than a lifetime ban would not have the deterrent effect that is required to make players aware that it is simply not worth the risk.”[43]
Although proportionality of the sanction is almost always raised in match-fixing appeals it is often rejected out of hand by SGB appellate bodies and CAS. Why can’t it be the case that a convicted match-fixer is punished, learns the error of his/her ways and can return to a sport to earn a living? One possible explanation why proportionality of the sanction is often given short shrift by tribunals is the way in which the arguments are pleaded and/or argued in the lead up to and at the hearing.
My suggested solution to bring the authorities approach to match-fixing sanctioning within the realms of proportionality is two-fold:
The criminal standard of proof of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ should be applied rather than that of ‘comfortable satisfaction’; and
Upon a successful conviction using that heightened standard of proof the SGB should use new international sanctioning guidelines which grade each offence into categories A, B, C etc with each category carrying a wide discretion in terms of a ban and/or a fine. Looking at the above table, should a failure to report carry the same ban as actually fixing matches?
Finally on sanctioning, as part of the fallout from the 2006 Claciopoli scandal in Italy, which was a non-betting related case, a court has ordered the referees involved to pay in total US$5.25 million in damages to the Italian Football Federation.[44]
Is there a significant appetite for a worldwide match-fixing agency?
A further aspect of match-fixing that the aforementioned Chris Eaton has shown himself to have strong views on is the much discussed possibility of a an independent organisation along the lines of the World Anti-Doping Agency (‘WADA’) to be the central body to fight match-fixing. Eaton would not go as far as to model such a body on WADA, rather he favours, “an independent organisation with some sort of global funding apparatus, a bit like WADA except that it needs to be an intelligence organisation.”[45] He describes it more fully as, “an intelligence-collecting, analysing and information sharing multi-agency global body — more similar to a Financial Action Task Force (‘FATF’) type of structure — that would be tasked to provide timely advice to governments, police and sport bodies and to provide direct support to any ad-hoc international investigative task forces.”[46]
I strongly believe that funding is the critical hurdle to the establishment of a worldwide match-fixing body in any form. With the continuing grim economic climate globally how will governments, who ultimately need to show willingness to contribute to the pot, economically and politically justify spending money on such a body? Furthermore SGBs themselves cannot agree on who should be responsible for driving out the scourge with Eaton having this to say, “It’s about avoiding paying for it, because there’s a significant cost to doing these things and ultimately they will have to do it anyway [eventually], so my suggestion is that the earlier they invest in this, the less it will cost them.”[47] Even if a worldwide body were to be set-up I suspect it would be lacking in teeth anyway until countries like the United States of America, India and China, that currently encourage illegal sports gambling and are considered the big closed danger markets[48], are convinced politically to take a stand.
Sponsors needed to add the impetus for long lasting change
Having worked in the field and communicated with those on the front line it has become apparent that the seemingly established triumvirate of clear guidelines, compliance and surveillance and education to combat match-fixing is not working as well as it should in practice. Having thought more studiously about it my view is that commercial rights holders, be they sponsors or broadcasters, as stakeholders in sport with ever increasing influence, should be shaping policy to a greater degree. Especially with SGBs who are still viewed as the, “first line of defence in preventing corruptors from destroying their sports.”[49]
Regrettably, as with the entirety of match-fixing, there is a lack of published research on the impact that scandals have on sponsorship and broadcasting revenues.[50] This is also a consequence of the difficulty of measuring the return on investment from obtaining the commercial rights in a sport. Yet there is visible evidence in some competitions that, “Stadiums previously full of supporters are now empty and falling into disrepair because sponsors are no longer dare to invest in an area so blighted by crime.”[51]
There have been recent examples of where sports have had to be mindful of the impact match-fixing may have on commercial rights holders and their reaction:
Sponsors of football clubs implicated in the recent Turkish football shenanigans, including famous brands such as Toyota, were said to be monitoring the scandal closely as it unfolded.[52]
The recent developments in the ‘Asiagate’ scandal led the SAFA to meet with its sponsors (including Absa, SAB, Tsogo Sun and Tiger Brands) to assure them that they are treating the matter with the upmost seriousness and that it “will not be swept under the carpet”.[53] Indeed it has been rumoured (although subsequently denied) that perhaps the biggest sponsor of South African football, Puma, had dropped the association as a result.[54]
Commercial rights holders should take a hard stance and say that they will not renew their agreements, or more drastically withdraw, whilst there is a significant perception that the sport is beset by match-fixing. Perhaps a good example to follow is that of Emirates, a major official sponsor of FIFA, who, following the numerous corruption scandals (including bribery and vote rigging) to have faced FIFA in the past 12 or so months, have said that it wants evidence FIFA is eradicating corruption and its public image is improving before renewing its current $195 million, eight-year sponsorship.[55] Its senior vice president Boutros Boutros had this to say, “Our research is to see how people perceive our brand – how they perceive our relationship with FIFA, how they look at it…I am yet to see the outcome of these measures and we are waiting and watching.”[56]
Where does this leave sport moving into 2013?
Some will say that great strides have been made in 2012 to lessen the impact of match-fixing on sport worldwide, and they would be right. This is a result of a variety of stakeholders taking new and innovative ways to tackle what is still an issue really in its infancy in terms of research an understanding.
The threats that remain moving into 2013 are many and wide ranging however. This is despite the fact that the global sports communities’ view of match-fixing appears to have become nuanced over the past 12 months. The principal example of this is a greater awareness of the difference between betting and non-betting (sporting) related match-fixing. Undoubtedly there has been far greater focus on the former, which is understandable given the overarching and menacing presence of ‘organised crime’, a term which has a greater impact on key stakeholders (particularly politicians) than ‘match-fixing’, and that it is suggested by INTERPOL that sports betting has become a $1 trillion industry.[57] This will still be the focus of all those interested and affected by match-fixing because transnational criminal organisations continue to take advantage of changes in regulations, flaws in legal and judicial systems, the opening-up of borders and the growth of free trade, all of which are direct consequences of globalisation.[58] Not to mention that the world of sport, as we have seen by the number of scandals detailed at the beginning of this article, is still not as familiar as it should be with the risks to which it is exposed because it does not always fully understand the world of betting and gambling.[59]
With the grim economic climate showing no signs of abating, not just for 2013 but for some years to come, people will look to make a quick buck from sports betting (particularly illegal sports betting) which will fuel its growth. More significantly the economy will provide the biggest challenge in finding the necessary resources that all actors need to effectively tackle match-fixing. This is undoubtedly the largest issue yet to be resolved or even properly addressed.
For all the good work being done by INTERPOL, the COE and others, the key broker in the continuing progress against this crucial threat to the integrity of sport is the IOC because it is seemingly the only body with the necessary political, social and sporting clout. All other stakeholders should heed the experience the IOC gained during the London Olympics, particularly with the JAU, to provide a coherent, powerful and above all effective strategy for 2013 and beyond.
[22] ‘Arrests across Asia in INTERPOL-led operation targeting illegal soccer gambling networks’, Interpol.net, 18 July 2012
[23] ‘Overview’, Interpol.net
[24] ‘Integrity in Sport’, Interpol.int
[25] ‘Keeping sport clean needs enhanced policing and prevention, INTERPOL Chief tells summit’, Interpol.int, 25 April 2012
[26] ‘Arrests across Asia in INTERPOL-led targeting illegal soccer gambling networks’, Interpol.int, 18 July 2012
[27] ‘Arrests across Asia in INTERPOL-led targeting illegal soccer gambling networks’, Interpol.int, 18 July 2012
[28] ‘Protecting sport from organized crime the focus of INTERPOL panel at International Anti-Corruption Conference’, Interpol.int, 12 November 2012
[29] Profile, theicss.org
[30] ‘The increasing prevalence of criminal manipulation of football results’, leadersinfootball.com, 26 October 2012
[31] ‘The insidious spread of gambling fraud’, Chris Eaton, ICSS Journal, December 2012
[32] ‘The increasing prevalence of criminal manipulation of football results’, leadersinfootball.com, 26 October 2012
[33] ‘The Sports Corruption Industry and the Great Cover-Up II’, Declan Hill, howtofixasoccergame.com, 4 December 2012
[34] ‘The Sports Corruption Industry and the Great Cover-Up II’, Declan Hill, howtofixasoccergame.com, 4 December 2012
[35] ‘K-League to introduce lie-detector tests as part of match-fixing restructure measures’, Ben Somerford, goal.com, 12 July 2011
[36] ‘Soccer Cheating Reduced by Polygraph Testing, Official Says’, Tariq Panja, Bloomberg, 10 October 2012
[37] ‘Bulgarian team ordered to take lie detector tests by own bosses amid match-fixing claims’, Daily Mail Online, 25 September 2012
[38] ‘Reading between the lines’, Michael Watts, The Sunday Times Magazine, 25 November 2012
[39] Article 10.2, WADA Code
[40] CAS 2007/A/1427 M. V ATP Tour Inc., 11 June 2008 & CAS 2008/A/1630 Mathieu Montcourt v/ ATP, 13 May 2009
[41] CAS 2007/A/1427 M. V ATP Tour Inc., 11 June 2008 at para 31
[42] CAS 2011/A/2490 Daniel Kollerer v Association of Tennis Professionals, Women’s Tennis Association, International Tennis Federation & Grand Slam Committee, 23 March 2012 & ‘Media Release: The Court of Arbitration for Sport confirms the life ban imposed on David Savic but lifts the fine’, tas-cas.org, 6 September 2012
[43] CAS 2011/A/2490 Daniel Kollerer v Association of Tennis Professionals, Women’s Tennis Association, International Tennis Federation & Grand Slam Committee at para 123, 23 March 2012
[44] ‘Soccer referees in 2006 scandal forced to pay $5 million’, cbc.ca, 17 October 2012
[45] ‘Independent agency needed to fight match-fixing’, Brian Homewood, ChicagoTribune.com, 30 November 2012
[46] ‘The insidious spread of gambling fraud’, Chris Eaton, ICSS Journal, December 2012
[47] ‘Independent agency needed to fight match-fixing’, Brian Homewood, ChicagoTribune.com, 30 November 2012
[48] ‘Match-fixing: a winnable war?’ Panel at Sport & iGaming conference 2012, London, 29 November 2012
[49] ‘Study – Sports betting and corruption: How to preserve the integrity of sport’ at page 55, IRIS, University of Salford, Cabinet Praxes-Avocats & CCLS, 13 February 2012
[50] ‘Conceptualising corruption in sport: Implications for sponsorship programmes’, Samantha Gorse & Simon Chadwick, The European Business Review at p40-45, July/August 2010
[51] ‘Study – Sports betting and corruption: How to preserve the integrity of sport’ at page 45, IRIS, University of Salford, Cabinet Praxes-Avocats & CCLS, 13 February 2012
[52] ‘Burden of match-fixing scandal weighs on sponsors’ shoulders’, Erisa Dautaj Senerdem, hurriyetdailynews.com, 7 May 2011
[53] ‘SAFA briefs sponsors on match-fixing’, kickoff.com, 12 January 2013
[54] ‘Puma sponsorship deal still alive, says Safa boss’, Kgomotso Setushia & Ramatsiyi Moholoa, bdlive.co.za, 10 January 2013
[55] ‘Emirates airlines demands FIFA reforms’, msn.foxsports.com, 23 November 2012
[56] ‘Emirates airlines demands FIFA reforms’, msn.foxsports.com, 23 November 2012
[57] ‘Fifa determined to tackle international match-fixing’, Bill Wilson, BBC News Business, 10 October 2012
[58] ‘Study – Sports betting and corruption: How to preserve the integrity of sport’ at page 5, IRIS, University of Salford, Cabinet Praxes-Avocats & CCLS, 13 February 2012
[59] ‘Study – Sports betting and corruption: How to preserve the integrity of sport’ at page 55, IRIS, University of Salford, Cabinet Praxes-Avocats & CCLS, 13 February 2012
