The fix is in
What was seemingly a long time coming, Europol announced they have uncovered a massive match-fixing ring. The announcement raises more questions, than answers. In particular, why now? The announcement was short on details because another of cases are before courts. This has encouraged speculation over which matches, officials and players were involved.
Another question related to the numbers. Apparently 380 matches were fixed, with 425 officials, players and other individuals identified. As reported in the Guardian:
They said that criminals put €16m on rigged matches and made €8m in profits. Payments of €2m are thought to have been paid to those involved, while investigators said that the biggest payment to an individual was €140,000.
If only €2million were paid out to 425 individuals, that means that every individual, if divide equally, would receive €4705 per match. Now, Europol indicated that 425 “officials, players and criminals” were involved. If you are being bribed to throw a game, whether as a player or official, I have trouble seeing how you are not a criminal as well. However, for the sake of understanding these numbers, one can presume that the €2million is going to the officials and players, and not the criminals who are orchestrating the scheme. Considering that the highest payment was €140,000, and that there were 380 matches involved, it is clear that many individuals were willing to accept small amounts of money to decide what is supposed to be a team sport.
When paying attention to the big spending leagues in Europe, it is easy to forget that the majority of soccer players get paid very little. It is all fine and dandy to worry about whether Chelsea or Manchester City are spending so much that they will not meet their UEFA Financial Fair Play obligations, but the reality is many people involved in soccer do not drive fancy cars, live in huge houses and whose biggest problems off the pitch is not being caught cheating on your spouse. Where there is pressure and opportunity to make money, some individuals will have a tough time saying no. Moreover, Italy with all of its recent well publicized match-fixing issues is a perfect example where a large wealthy league can have match-fixing issues on an institutional level.
Match-fixing has long been a scourge on sports, and soccer in particular, for numerous years. Soccer is particularly susceptible to match-fixing because of its popularity and global reach. There are games played in almost every region at practically in time during the time. Unlike the stock market, bookies have a never-ending period to place their bets.
The fact that 680 matches over a three-year period that included World Cup qualifiers, Euro Cup games, Champion Leagues matches, and one match that reportedly took place in England – all apparently spearheaded from Singapore – hits home that this is a global issue and that no one is immune. The tendency is to view this as an Eastern European or Italian issue, a problem arising where unsavoury behaviour is allowed to fester in regions of much poverty (and often balanced by the few with great wealth) – in other words, where there is temptation and availability of money. The reality is that where there is gamblers there will be potential for someone to make money off the game.
As a fan, it difficult to see match-fixing in action. Part of the beautiful game is the low score, which lead to random results where David can challenge Goliath. Last year’s games between Barcelona and Chelsea in the Champions League Semi-finals were a perfect example. Despite Barcelona maintaining approximately 80% possession and having the superior number of opportunities, Chelsea was able to score on the counter-strikes. Barcelona was widely considered the better team, on that day and every other day, but it was Chelsea that went on to win the Champions League.
Back on December 8, 2011, speculation was rife that match-fixing had decided the outcome of a Champions League group. On the final day of Group games, as they prepared to face off in the ArenA Madrid and Ajax were in the pole positions to advance to the Round of 16. Ajax were 3 points up and third place Lyon with a 7 point goal difference. Ajax went on to lose at home 0-3 with two perfectly good goals disallowed. The goal difference should have seen them through but for Lyon smacking down Dinamo Zagreb 1-7 away. In fairness to Zagreb, they did score their first goal of the Champions League that day. However that goal was in the 40th minute, meaning that as all four teams went into half-time, Ajax still had a 7 point goal difference to rely. In the second half, Lyon scored an almost unheard of 7 goals in 30 minutes, while Madrid scored twice against Ajax to send them to the Europa League. The elements are there for allegations of match-fixing (including suggestions that a Dinamo players was seen leaving a bookie’s office), but proving it is something else. One of the means to identify match-fixing is to look at irregularities in betting behaviour. In this Zagreb example, there were no irregularities – everyone expected Zagreb to lose and they did lose.
Anyone who has read Declan Hill’s blog, or his excellent tome, The Fix, knows that match-fixing has been on ongoing problem for years. In Canada, a CBC investigation and found that two players in the Canadian Soccer league were bribed to throw a match. The fact that international match-fixing allegations could encompass the CSL speaks to the sheer breadth of the operations. The vast-majority of Canadians have never heard of this Ontario-centric league with a national name, yet there are people placed at CSL games to report back the play by play so that European gamblers have something to bet on in the wee hours.
Canada has recently made single-game betting legal. Previously, individuals had to bet on two or more games. This restriction made match-fixing slightly less interesting when individuals are unable to bet on the outcome of a single game. The rise of internet gambling has meant that single-game betting has been available in Canada for a number of years, if not sanctioned and operated by government agencies (In fact, Bodog, one of the largest internet sport betting sites was created by a Canadian). To address this discrepancy, Parliament decided to pass Bill C-290 without the benefit of hearing witnesses at committee. Bill C-290 removes single game/race betting from the Criminal Code. By adopting this approach, Parliament has decided to facilitate gambling (and indirectly raising the potential for match-fixing), so that governments can benefit from a certain type of gambling that was previously illegal. This approach does do anything to actually address the problems related to gambling.
While the Europol’s announcement brings much needed attention to this issue, the lack of information available does a disservice in addressing this issue. Match-fixing will continue to be soccer’s greatest challenge for some time to come.
Red Oranje 