2 Bedford Row

Corruption in sport - Say It Aint So: Jim Sturman QC 25 October 2011
Posted by: 2bedfordrowchambers

Recent tabloid headlines have gone so far as to suggest match fixing and spread betting "fixes" threaten the very existence of sport. Leaving aside the inevitable hyperbole that results from a headline writer being able to write about both sport and crime in the same story is there any substance to the suggestion from some quarters that things are worse now than they ever were before? Stories refer to "shadowy crime syndicates" heaping huge sums of money on bets on the outcome of matches that are said to be rigged. Is this new? What is the true scale of the problem?

It certainly isn't new. The memorable phrase "say it ain't so" is attributed to a young boy standing outside a Court room in the USA in 1920 after "Shoeless" Joe Jackson had given testimony admitting that he had been a party to a conspiracy to rig the result of the 1919 World Series between the Boston White Sox and the Cincinnati Reds.

Whether or not that child ever uttered those remarks to Shoeless Joe, or they were the invention of a sensationalist journalist with an eye to what we would now call a headline, the public in the UK largely hold to the belief that our game is honest and match fixing doesn't happen. Despite that perception in England UEFA has for some years been warning of systematic corruption in sport, and embarked on a massive programme of anti-corruption measures, including establishing a well resourced integrity unit and lecturing young players ahead of the under 19 UEFA Championship to guard against approaches from match fixers (see www.uefa.com 23/7/2011).

English football has not always been free from corruption. In the 1960's Jimmy Gauld was at the centre of a match fixing scandal that led to the arrest and charges of more than 30 players playing in the lower leagues, the scandal only being unearthed when Mr Gauld tried to sell his story to the newspapers for a further pay day. Players were sentenced to prison terms (Gauld received a sentence of 4 years for corrupting other players) and banned from the game for life.

What was the similarity between those involved in the English match fixing scandal of 1964 and Shoeless Joe? In each case the professional athletes were being paid very little by way of salary and the money involved in fixing games was "too good" to resist. Where players are paid so much that there is no real incentive for them to be involved in corruption the "fixers" turn to referees, in high profile cases in Germany (Robert Hoyzer, a referee in the Bundesliga, admitted involvement in match fixing and was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment) and in the USA (Tim Donaghy, an NBA referee) investigations have revealed referees attempting to rig the result of matches on behalf of betting syndicates.

In 2009 UEFA announced that there was a current investigation into match fixing involving 200 matches in a number of National Leagues and the Champions League. Allegations that surfaced in Turkey in the summer of 2011 led to the eventual removal of Fenerbace SK from this year's Champions League and a large number of arrests. Allegations of corruption (some proven and some not) on the part of various members of the FIFA executive constantly appear, and then reappear some years down the line. (As with the current revelations coming from Zurich about the settlement in Switzerland in the ISL case, which now will be published for public scrutiny as opposed to being sealed behind Swiss confidentiality laws and protected from independent assessment). Critics of the game, and those who see dark conspiracies behind every closed door, point to these factors as apparent indicators of football as a game in a deep and worsening crisis. A minimum of research reveals that there have been investigations into match fixing in leagues all over the world, Italy (most famously in 2006, when Juventus were stripped of the Serie A title and relegated) Brazil, Germany, Finland, Albania, Latvia, Slovenia, Hungary, Macedonia, Austria and other countries.

Whilst not as obvious a threat to the integrity of the game, spread betting has always been open to abuse. In Matthew Le Tissier's autobiography the ex England and Southampton player revealed that in 1995 he had placed a bet on the time of the first throw in, attempting to kick the ball straight out of play he under hit the ball and then memorably described how he had to run around trying to ensure that the ball went out of play so that he did not lose on the bet. He neither won nor lost, the confession led to an investigation but the CPS concluded that there was no public interest to be served in a prosecution. Any player who was still playing who made a similar confession today could expect to be charged by the FA (at the least) and to receive a very substantial playing ban. All 4 players found guilty by the FA of betting on the result of the Bury v Accrington football league match were banned from the game for substantial periods of time even though it was accepted that the allegation did not include one of "fixing" the result.

The FA's rule book now makes no distinction between players betting on their teams to win or lose, Rule 8 states that a Participant cannot bet on the "result, progress or conduct of a match or competition in which the Participant is participating, or has participated in that season: or in which the Participant has any influence, either direct or indirect". Players registered with a Club are deemed to participate in every match that Club plays in whilst the Player is so registered.

Even before "Shoeless Joe" fell from grace corruption in football had been shown to exist, in 1915 7 players from Manchester United and Liverpool were banned for life for agreeing to fix a game to allow Manchester United to win 2 nil. Players from both sides placed substantial bets on that scoreline, although one player from Liverpool was so desperate to stop the fix that when he hit the crossbar at 2 nil players who were involved surrounded him and remonstrated with him. Notably the 6 players who survived the Great War were later reinstated and allowed to play again as thanks for their service to the country in the war.

The bookmakers could immediately eradicate most of the dangers inherent in "spot fixing" and match fixing by removing the markets for bets on incidents such as "time of first throw", and indeed by only allowing bets on horses or teams to "win" not lose (the suspicion that a horse was ridden by his jockey in order that it deliberately did not win is very hard to prove, but where tens of thousands of pounds have been "laid" on the horse to lose there will always be suspicions). Of course were the bookies to do so they would immediately lose a huge slice of their market, and the bookies are quite happy for the punter to bet and lose on anything, but are a lot less happy when individuals "in the know" pile on to a bet on the result of a relatively minor game. Sophisticated computer models warn the bookmakers when an uncharacteristically large bet is placed, although what is "uncharacteristic" for a Scottish second division game or English League Two match may only amount to a couple of hundred pounds, and the "scale" of the bet could well be down to some "in the knows" (to coin a phrase from football club message boards) who have bragged of "inside knowledge" in their local the previous night but who are normally not in the know at all!

The investigation into alleged corruption in Turkish football led to 61 arrests in July 2011, it has been alleged that as many as twenty games were "fixed". Wave after wave of arrest of high profile players, club officials and journalists followed the original arrests. UEFA's concern at events led to UEFA Chief executive Gianni Infantino reaffirming UEFA's "zero tolerance" to match fixing, and reminding all who listened that UEFA "constantly" monitored all European domestic league and UEFA matches for evidence of "unusual betting patterns". On 24/8/2011 the Turkish FA withdrew Fenerbace SK from the Champions League on the grounds that the Club had been involved in match fixing. The outcome of the criminal prosecutions of the individuals arrested and charged is not yet known.

UEFA and FIFA have devoted considerable resources to eradicating this taint on the game but it is likely that for as long as the game is played there will always be a suspicion (sometimes justified and sometimes not) that some games are corrupt. Players and officials proved to have played a part in match fixing will be banned from the game for life.

The taint of suspicion on an individual caught up in such an investigation is highly damaging to their reputation, but also causes untold stress and unwelcome press intrusion that may be wholly unjustified if the individual is innocent. If the regulatory bodies turn the case over to the police then investigations are long and time consuming as well as an intense strain on the suspect. The crossover between sport and crime is of particular fascination to the press and the person at the centre of an investigation will often require his lawyers to ensure that the boundaries of lawful reporting are not blurred, or even deliberately crossed. It is unfortunate indeed that where sport and crime mix experience has shown that the contempt of Court provisions are almost routinely transgressed by sports reporters who are unfamiliar with (or do not care to find out about) the limits on what can be reported once proceedings are contemplated.

It is probable that high profile criminal prosecutions will be brought in the future if the officers investigating feel they have gathered sufficient evidence, but such prosecutions are difficult to bring home on the criminal standard of proof and the greater risk for the player tempted to bet on the time of the first throw in 2011 is an FA charge and a substantial ban from the game in the event that a Regulatory Commission finds the case proved. Of course only "Participants" are subject to the rules and sanctions of the FA, the punter faces investigation by the Police.

Certainly the headlines do seem to suggest that there are very real problems in modern day football across Europe in relation to match fixing. Quite what the actual scale of the problem is is very hard to assess and independently minded observers should beware the overstated claims of those with a vested interest in building an empire in "investigations" and "compliance". The recent history of prosecutions in the criminal courts in the UK is not one where the authorities have enjoyed a great deal of success but improved technology and the examination of emails and phone traffic between alleged co-conspirators might in the future lead to a more successful outcome for the prosecution than the ill conceived prosecution of several jockeys at the Old Bailey in 2008 - a case that collapsed with the Judge directing the acquittal of all of the accused at the close of the prosecution case.

Jim Sturman QC was counsel instructed in the "horse race fixing trial", retained to advise in several corruption in sport inquiries across the world as well as in the Bury v Accrington FA investigation into betting on a match by participants.  See also www.jimsturmanqc.com