Match-Fixing in European Football

Chapter 1

Introduction

The sports sector is characterised by streams of large revenue and with inadequate transparent. As such it is highly vulnerable to corruption. The parties involved complicate the systems on efforts to prevent corruption scandals mainly because of their diversities; sporting associations, charities, players, fans and civil societies (Abbott and Sheehan, 2013). Football match-fixing is currently a common challenge in the European football today both at the elite and grassroots levels. Match-fixing is done to achieve a partial or complete predetermined outcome. Currently, the main reason for match-fixing, especially at the elite level, is to get payments from gamblers. The other reason is to give a team a future advantage against their opponents (Carpenter, 2012).

On another level, match-fixing might be solely done by one player with the objective to rig the system. Match manipulation, match-fixing, and sports corruption is today a widespread problem in the sports sector. It takes different forms including bribery with the aim of putting undue influences on the stakeholders of the soccer clubs, managers, coaches and others who have the ability to affect the final scores. In addition, match-fixing spills over into the arena of illegal betting (Dietl and Weingärtner, 2012)

Match-fixing is a type of sports corruption that has been deemed difficult to confront mainly because of various issues; match-fixing is hard for the observe or confirm that it happened, also, when it happens, it is difficult to determine what factors should be measured to determine whether the match-fixing affected the results of a match. Additionally, it is challenging to deal with the issue of match-fixing since it is conducted at different levels; mechanisms would have to be integrative or tested to ensure that they are effective at both grassroots and professional levels. Where match-fixing occurs, the challenge has been found in the determination of those involved and the structures within which it happens (Feltes,2013). Match-fixing happens in a multi-layered structure which makes it impossible to trace back to the organisers. Match-fixing in European football has been reported to be occurring at both elite and grass root levels. However, in both of these levels, clubs, managers, coaches, and fans have differing motives and therefore different approaches to match-fixing and sports corruption (Forrest, 2012).

Research Rationale

Depending on the level of the club, various options of match-fixing are available. At the local and amateur levels, clubs approach opponents with an agreement and if the opponent agrees, an amount is paid at the beginning or the end of the season. Coaches may also be involved with agreements of making a substitution with less qualified players to grant a win to the other team. At the professional levels, while bribing may also be used, betting, better payoff, and gambling are the main techniques used. Numerous research has been published on match-fixing. However, much of this research has focused on elite/professional football level (2005 Bundesliga scandal; 2005, 2005 Italian Serie B champions; 2007–08 UEFA Cup semi-final scandal; 2011 Finnish Football fixing scandal; 2013 Lebanese match-fixing scandal). This research seeks to conduct a comparative analysis of the prevalence of elite and grass root match-fixing. The rationale for this focus is to allow the researcher to explore further on match-fixing in elite football and to explore the issue at a grass root level. A comparative technique will also provide the researcher with an avenue to explore the research issue further. The focus will be limited to European football.

Research Objectives

The aim of this study is to achieve a comparative analysis of the prevalence of match-fixing in professional and grass root level European Football. The following questions will be answered to achieve the objective above.

Primary Research Question

What are the causes of and effects of match-fixing in grass root and professional level European football?

Secondary Research Questions

What are the causes of match-fixing in grass root and professional Europe football?

What are the effects of match-fixing in grass root and professional Europe football?

What is the rate of growth on match-fixing in grass root and professional Europe football?

What are the recommended strategies to combat match-fixing in grass root and professional Europe football?

Chapter 2

Literature Review

Match-fixing in sports

At the EU stage, match-fixing has been identified as a significant threat to sports activities nearly a decade in the past inside the framework of the White Paper on Sport (2007). From a criminal perspective, the Lisbon Treaty affords the idea for the Union to help and body movement within the area of the game. Article a hundred sixty-five TFEU states that Union movement shall be aimed toward growing the European measurement in-game via, inter alia, selling fairness and openness in wearing competitions and cooperation among bodies chargeable for sports. In addition, Article one hundred sixty-five TFEU requires the Union and the Member States to foster cooperation with international businesses within the field of game, specifically the Council of Europe.

According to Manoli and Antonopoulos (2015), match-fixing is a threat to sports because it is conducted by very powerful people behind the scene of sports. Forrest, (2012) looked into the motive and reasons for match-fixing and noted that just to mention a few, people involved in match-fixing do it for economic benefits and for sports benefits which are different in different cases. Further, this research observed that these benefits are either directly or indirectly the outcome of match-fixing. According to a report, European Commission, 2012, documented match-fixing is as old as a few decades ago; first documented being the Eupolos- Olympic Games of 338 BC; boxing competitors were bribed to make him a winner. According to (Dietl and Weingärtner, 2012) in today’s sports enviroenmnt, football is currently the most affected by match-fixing.

In KEA European Affairs (2012), football match-fixing is linked to "organised crime", especially in media. Clubs and players participating in match fixing are found to be financial distress which makes it easy targets for the organised groups such as betting companies; the players and clubs are provided with significant amounts of money while the groups acquire more influence on sports. According to Dietl and Weingärtner (2012), there is an increased awareness of match-fixing across the sports environment following continued documentation of match-fixing scandals. However, despite the increasing awareness and documentation, Dietl and Weingärtner (2012) note that little has been achieved with regard to minimising or control the scandals. Forrest (2012) insists that the reason for the insignificant achievement is that by the time the match-fixing scandals are identified, leagues are found to be suffering from a significant competitive imbalance among the league clubs. The competitive scourge results in the identification of small and poor football clubs and the rich and big club. According to Serby (2015), an analysis of the performance of professional football clubs encourages competitiveness that is geared by the financial and sports performance gaps. These gaps are directly affected and also influence the balance or imbalance of competitiveness within a league.

Some of the match-fixing scandals that have been recorded across the world include the 2009 European football betting scandal. This scandal was uniquely presented for its vast exposure on the impact of gambling and betting in match-fixing with the European Football. It was noted to be the biggest after the 2005 Robert Hoyzer scandal. The scandal involved many games, coaches and players. Some of the affected games included 32 Germany games, 11 Austria games, 22 matches in Switzerland and the UEFA Champions and Europe Leagues. The scandal aimed at influencing the outcome of matches in Europe as well as to defraud betting companies by putting bets on the matches’ results (Serby, 2015).

Gambling and match-fixing

Gambling is an online problem that has currently continued to grow and the relationship between gambling and football has been researched though not exhaustively. According to Dietl and Weingärtner (2012), over 50% of the football clubs in England have a gambling company on their playing kits. Gambling sponsors have continued to penetrate Europe football; a good example is the Sky Bet sponsoring the English Championship League. The problem with gambling has further been extended by the fact that it is being normalised especially among the youth. Gambling among the youth is today associated with showing support to a person's favourite team. In the UK, over 450,000 people were found to be addicted to gambling according to the Gambling Commission. Further, it was estimated that over 2 million people are at the risk of addiction in the estimated near future.

Links between professional footballs to gambling has been studied from different points of view. Football fans believe in betting to enjoy a match besides watching. Besides this force from the fan, research has identified a link between the financial stability of professional football clubs and players, and sponsorship from gambling firms. Following these observations, research unveiled the vulnerability of the integrity of sport due to the intrusion of gambling and betting. Accordingly, sports administrators ought to take action to ensure that professional football maintains sports integrity required (Kalb 2011). Gambling and betting have been found to raise serious concern especially because it has been observed that gambling has been integrated into the sports structures making it hard for administrators to deal with.

Small (2012) claimed that the lack of attention that gambling and betting requires has contributed to its continued growth in professional football. Further, the study claimed that other issues caused by the culture of fame in professional sports hinder the issue of gambling from being looked into. The fame culture has been associated with profits for clubs and wealth for stakeholders. The need for a club to lead in a match or for a player to perform an exemplary act as the motivations for the involvement in match-fixing through gambling.

Betting and betting related match-fixing in European football

According to the European soccer body, UEFA, in 2018, around 200 people were allegedly involved in a match-fixing scandal, though betting, that targeted 200 matches in Europe including the Champions and Europe leagues. Betting is currently a lucrative business currently involving about $70 billion each year. 80% of this spending has been found to be spent on football. Brasseur (2012) claims that a significant amount of money involved in football bets makes it impossible to control bets or to prove its influence on football.

Different cases have in the history of European football been recorded. A good example is the 2005 scandal involving Robert Hoyzey, a German referee who was sentenced to 2 years in prison for match-fixing. In a 2015/2016 case in Stuttgart, two Danish Premier Leagues were postponed following allegations of match-fixing. The alleged cases involved bribes offered to players to achieve predetermined scores. According to a reported by the Sportrader Fraud Detection 2018, about 1700 matches globally have been manipulated through betting between the years 2009 and 2014. Match-fixing related to live betting were found to largely influence the goals scored and the final score of a match (Serby, 2015). Match manipulation related to betting targets the enrichment of club managers, players, trainers and referees which makes it organised crime.

According to Smith (2012), betting is a growing problem associated with match-fixing in Europe Football. Further, Smith (2012) alleged that it is difficult to control match-fixing because evidence related to betting is only available as data that has been aggregated from the betting markets in unusual patterns. Those involved in betting match-fixing make huge profits by controlling football using predetermined outcomes. FiFPro (2012) investigated the economic models related to match-fixing that show that referees are the major targets of the match-fixing through betting. The reason for targeting the referees is because of the influence they have on the outcomes of a match. Also, the issue concerning low compensation for the referees; this makes them an easy target.

Professional versus Grass root Football Match-fixing

Hill (2010) surveyed a number of latest in manipulation scandals in sports activities, together with the notorious 2011 “Bochum trial” in Germany where proof of match-fixing is prevalence. The trial involved 53 Germany matches. Notably, most of these match-fixing scandals as observed in Hill (2015) involved referees. The huge involvement of the referees diverted the research to the evaluation of referee compensations. In the evaluation, the study found out that Premier League referees earned base salaries of €38,500 per season and a further €1,170 as allowances provided. Related to this under compensation, the study further established that besides being in sports, the referees, especially those involved in the Bundesliga 1 scandal pursue different jobs besides refereeing, starting from dentist to legal professional.

Hill (2013) considered key instances of match-fixing that directly related to referee corruption: the 2000 Hoyzer case and the 2011 “Bochum trial” involving Ante Sapina. Robert Hoyzer, a Bundesliga referee, was found responsible for fixing 23 Bundesliga matches and convicted of fraud. He became stuck after some of the egregious calls, inclusive of awarding consequences to SC Paderborn in a shocking 4-2 win after trailing zero-2 in 2004 against Hamburg and ejecting Hamburg's star striker for misconduct. Hoyer implicated Sapina with an allegation for being the main supplier for the bribes. However, Sapina has remained unprosecuted.

Manoli and Antonopoulos (2015) reported an observation that a referee can have a bigger impact on the outcome of a match than maximum players can, which additionally makes them prime candidates for corruption. Since the predicted returns of wrongful conduct are bad if said behavior is uncovered, increasing referee compensation may be interpreted as lowering incentives to these acts of match-fixing. Premier League referees who transfer from short-term contracts to salaried contracts show progressed performance (Bryson, Buraimo and Simmons, 2011). In line with this argumentation, Forrest and Simmons (2003) developed a model to give an explanation for match-fixing in sports activities primarily based on the expected charges and benefits related to match-fixing. Using this model further revealed that referees are probable candidates for corruption, in that the chance that a character will take moves to affect the outcome of a sports event increase by five on the probability to influence the final results. The chance that the actions of a referee can influence outcomes exceeds the chance for coaches and nearly all gamers.

Numerato (2016) considered a game theory version of the strategic interplay match-fixers. The version assumes that members in sporting events may be liable to corruption, given sufficient monetary incentives, and indicates that the chance of corruption increases as the compensation of the individuals decreases. This prediction implies that referees are prime candidates for corruption due to their noticeably low degrees of reimbursement, in particular in contrast to coaches and gamers (Numerato, 2016).

Most studies on the reasons for match-fixing have focused on the European professional soccer context. Nowy and Breuer (2017) tested the volume and drivers of match-fixing in European grassroots soccer from an organizational capacities framework. European grassroots football have been surveyed in which match-fixing has been discovered to be a crucial problem (Serby, 2015). Organizational capacity factors contributing to match-fixing blanketed largely sized clubs, independent (football best) with less formalized team of workers and recorded lower levels of revenue diversification. Managers of grassroots football golf equipment ought to take a look at their organizational capacities independently and in live performance with every other to understand what capabilities of those groups make a contribution to grass root match-fixing. Managers could enhance their strategic potential by offering fixed match research that enhances recognition about predicted codes of conduct, clear definitions of corrupt behaviors, and powerful accountability practices (Manoli and Antonopoulos, 2015).

Theoretical Framework

Based on evidence availed, match-fixing is prevalence due to the resultant profits bet companies, gamblers, and match-fixers generate from influencing the outcome of a match. Based on this association, then, theoretically, matches with a large bet volume and which also shows unusual patterns in the bets leave a gap which allows match-fixing. As already established too, match-fixing and benefits from match-fixing are diverse in form. Based on evidence of match-fixing, matches with prizes for the winners attract match-fixing were payoffs are offered to the match participants (referees, trainers, players, managers) to achieve a predetermined match outcome. Bets on a match are the easiest way to profit by placing a bet on match outcome determined in advanced. An organisation or a body of match-fixers befitting from a match-fixing ordeal ensures that the outcome is straightforward and easy to influence and is also difficult to trace this influence. The question that arises from this theoretical observation is what factors contribute to match fixing at different levels of football and how are the match-fixers able to influence the matches without detection. Accordingly, therefore, it has been observed that while there are numerous publications on professional match-fixing, limited research has been identified for grassroots football match-fixing. In this research there, a research gap is identified, first on the exploration of grass root football match-fixing and then a comparative analysis to identify the causes and differences between the two.

Chapter 3

Research Methodology

To compete with the research objective, data that is readily available in peer review journals will be analysed to compare the prevalence of grass root football match-fixing to elite match-fixing. A desk research design will, therefore, be adopted for this study. Online desk research will be employed in which, data will be searched online from football Websites and search engines (Czarniawska, 2014).

Desk research for this study will the most suitable research method because conclusive information and will be required on match-fixing cases that have been experienced in European Football the past to conduct the comparison. This information is readily available in secondary sources and thus the desk research design.

By adopting secondary research for this research, a better understanding of the research issue will be achieved through a review of existing literature (Remler and Van Ryzin, 2014). Also, the literature will be useful for determining the research hypothesis for this study and suggested further research. Conducting research on issues of football is rather a complex process which would be expensive and time-consuming to engaging stakeholder across Europe (Walliman, 2017). Secondary research will, therefore, facilitate a cheap and timely budget and will also allow greater and in-depth analysis of the research issues (Cheng and Phillips, 2014).

References

Abbott, J., & Sheehan, D. (2013). The INTERPOL approach to tackling match-fixing in football. In Match-fixing in international sports (pp. 263-287). Springer, Cham.

Carpenter, K. (2012). Match-Fixing—The Biggest Threat to Sport in the 21st Century?. International sports law review, 2(1), 13-24.

Cheng, H. G., & Phillips, M. R. (2014). Secondary analysis of existing data: opportunities and implementation. Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry, 26(6), 371.

Dietl, H. M., & Weingärtner, C. (2012). Betting scandals and attenuated property rights–How betting-related match-fixing can be prevented in the future.

Feltes, T. (2013). Match-fixing in Western Europe. In Match-Fixing in International Sports (pp. 15-30). Springer, Cham.

Forrest, D. (2012). The threat to football from betting-related corruption. International Journal of Sports Finance, 7(2), 99-117.

Hill, D. (2010). A critical mass of corruption: why some football leagues have more match-fixing than others. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 11(3), 38-52.

Hill, D. (2013). The Insider's Guide to Match-fixing in Football. Toronto: Anne McDermid & Associates Limited.

Manoli, A. E., & Antonopoulos, G. A. (2015). ‘The only game in town?’: football match-fixing in Greece. Trends in Organized Crime, 18(3), 196-211.

Now, T., & Breuer, C. (2017). Match-fixing in European grassroots football. European Sports Management Quarterly, 17(1), 24-44.

Numerato, D. (2016). Corruption and public secrecy: An ethnography of football match-fixing. Current Sociology, 64(5), 699-717.

Remler, D. K., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2014). Research methods in practice: Strategies for description and causation. Sage Publications.

Serby, T. (2015). The Council of Europe Convention on Manipulation of Sports Competitions: the best bet for the global fight against match-fixing?. The International Sports Law Journal, 15(1-2), 83-100.

Spapens, T., & Olfers, M. (2015). Match-fixing: The current discussion in Europe and the case of the Netherlands. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 23(4), 333-358.

Walliman, N. (2017). Research methods: The basics. Routledge.