Don’t Bookmakers Cause Match-fixing?

Is there a threat to the integrity of sport from betting?

As long as there are dishonest individuals who seek to gain an advantage over bookmakers by fixing events or misusing inside information, there will be a need to remain vigilant.

Where does the biggest threat come from as far as sports betting is concerned?

The rise of betting exchanges - where unregulated individuals have the opportunity to offer a price (lay) on a losing event, has led to a number of high profile investigations by the horse racing authorities.

It is much easier to make sure a horse loses than to make sure it wins, which is one reason why traditional bookmakers only allow customers to bet on winning outcomes.

Do bookmakers have an interest in fixing markets?

Legitimate bookmakers construct their book in such a way as to make a theoretical profit regardless of the outcome of the event. “Fixing markets” is not only anathema to all licensed bookmakers, it is irrelevant to their business model.

Do bookmakers have any reason to ignore suspicious transactions or understate the extent of the problem?

Managing financial risk is at the heart of running a bookmaking business and markets are constantly monitored for unusual activity as part of normal risk management strategies. Bookmakers are more likely to be guilty of over-reporting  than under-reporting and are now working together to make sure that suspicious transactions are identified and investigated quicker than ever before.

How prevalent is betting related corruption?

A specialist panel set up by the government was tasked with looking at this question, but a definitive finding was not reached. Representatives from Sports Governing Bodies (SGBs) claim that the problem is much more serious than the objective evidence demonstrates. The betting industry contends that the data supports their view that while there is theoretical risk, actual incidents are relatively rare. Bookmakers believe that interested parties are misusing this issue to lobby for more funding and to gain more control over the betting product.

What evidence is there for suspicious betting?

Between September 2007 and September 2009 there were 71 reports of suspicious betting activity reported to the Gambling Commission. Over half these cases were dismissed, while 27 of the reports were passed to SGBs for further investigation. Six investigations are still active. There have been no prosecutions by the Commission for cheating in gambling and no bets voided.

Are all cases of cheating in sport driven by the fact that betting markets are offered?

As any sports fans would tell you, absolutely not! Infamous recent events such as “Bloodgate” in Rugby Union and the “Crashgate” scandal in F1 had nothing to do with betting and there are many other examples of cheating and financial irregularity within sport that are unrelated to gambling.

Is betting related corruption as big a threat as doping?

A recent independent report commissioned by the Remote Gambling Association found that the threat from doping (obtaining an unfair advantage through the use of banned substances) is much greater. Suspicious cases related to doping were 18 times more likely to arise than those involving sports betting, while proven cases of doping were 95 times more likely than proven cases of corruption in sports betting.

So, who has primary responsibility for addressing this issue?

In short, it’s everyone's responsibility: betting operators, SGBs and the Gambling Commission. Every party with a vested interest in corruption-free sport has their part to play, from effective regulatory structures and participant education to efficient reporting of suspicious transactions and pooling of information.

Is there any justification for sports demanding a levy from bookmakers to fund the policing of these issues?

Proportionality and fairness are the keys here. Bookmakers are not only heavily taxed but also contribute around 40 percent of total Gambling Commission income, part of which pays for its intelligence and investigative functions. In contrast, SGBs and major leagues enjoy substantial (often tax free) income with betting operators also contributing some €3.4 billion to sport across the EU, almost two thirds of which comes from private sector operators.

There is simply no evidence that sport needs substantial funding from bookmakers to deal with the very few substantive betting integrity cases that are pursued at the moment. The most serious cases can be dealt with by the Gambling Commission and with the right education programmes and regulatory structures in place, SGBs can deal effectively with their own participants.
Betting operators already spend many millions of pounds on managing risk and running integrity systems.  Duplicating this resource within structures under the control of sport (and asking the betting industry to pay for it) simply does not make sense.

What does the future hold?

It is hoped that all participants will adopt the recent recommendations of the DCMS betting integrity panel, but the debate is bound to continue around funding. The Gambling Commission will need to assess whether its existing budget is adequate to run the new Sports Betting Intelligence Unit (SBIU) and sport (particularly the Sports Rights Owners Coalition) will continue to lobby both the UK Government and the EU for more control of the betting product and to secure additional funding from bookmakers.

Bookmakers understand that the government wishes to promote and support sport (as they do themselves), but the betting industry isn’t recession proof either, and would be utterly opposed to a formal “state aid” arrangement for sport that taxes bookmakers with little justification.

« back to ABB position paper

• Links
• Careers
• Sitemap