Sports betting and corruption: How to preserve the - SportAccord

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Sports betting and corruption: How to preserve the integrity of sport Live betting allows a larger overall sum to be bet than would be accepted by the market prior to the match. It is in effect possible to bet throughout a match and thereby multiply one s bets. If one knows, for example, that a match will end at 3-0, and the third goal has already been scored, one can continue to bet on the fact that there will be no more goals in the match. Live betting can therefore be particularly advantageous for criminals. Exchange betting can entail particular risks in the context of horse racing because it allows betting on the fact that a horse will not win (non-realisation of outcome X). It is in fact easier to ensure that a horse does not win a race, than that it does ... This issue does not arise in the same way for other sports. Certainly, one can imagine it in athletics (running), F1 or cycling, but too few bets are recorded in these disciplines nowadays. It is also conceivable that with bets linked to the identity of goal scorers in football matches, one could bet that such-and-such a player would not score, which again is easier to achieve than ensuring that the player does score. But the issue is not particularly stimulating for genuine gamblers, and the amounts bet may well be too low. A criminal organisation could therefore not use this type of betting to attempt to win money through match rigging, unless they were content with more limited winnings. One of the real problems connected with exchange betting is that the operator does not suffer any loss if a match is rigged, because all it does is put gamblers in touch with one another. Consequently operators can afford to be relatively indifferent to manipulations or match rigging because they do not in the end have to pay out, and may be less keen to denounce cases of match fixing (in other words if a gambler bets a large sum in a suspicious way), because it is not them that has to pay the winners. Nevertheless Betfair puts great emphasis on the work of its integrity team , which monitors changes in betting and alerts the authorities in the event of suspect movements - several scandals have been revealed in this way through warnings from Betfair, the best known being the Davydenko affair (2007) 78 . The Internet and the issue of gambler anonymity One can place bets anonymously through the non-virtual betting network (i.e. in high street betting shops in France and the United Kingdom for example) by paying and receiving one s winnings in cash. But this anonymity is only possible on bets and wins of limited amounts. Two cases where the physical network has entertained a suspicion of match rigging: the Hoyzer affair (2005), which was orchestrated by criminals betting through the German physical network (monopolistic operator Oddset) and the warning that was issued in respect of the Tours-Grenoble football match in France s League 2 on 29 April 2011. Just before this match, the Francaise des Jeux noticed that many sales points in Corsica and the South East of the country had reached their bet acceptance threshold. The bets placed were massively in favour of the Grenoble team, although it was bottom of the rankings at the time and was playing away from home. At half-time, Grenoble led 2-0 and the Professional Football League, alerted by the betting operator and faced with a score that confirmed its suspicions, placed the match under surveillance. Tours eventually equalised and the match ended in a 2-2 draw. An unsuccessful police inquiry was then carried out. Fraud was not formally established in this instance, so it does not enable a conclusion to to be drawn as a specific risk of identification on physical networks. 78 Interview with the Betfair security team, 14 April 2011, London. 40
Sports betting and corruption: How to preserve the integrity of sport As far as virtual betting is concerned, any irrational movement is in principle detectable and associated wages are traceable by the operators, because gamblers cannot create client accounts on Internet sites unless they provide their personal details, and particularly their bank details (to fund the account and recover their winnings). However, any seasoned Internet user can falsify their identity, create false IP addresses and use bogus bank accounts.There are even sites on the Internet offering these types of services, along with instructions on how to develop or take advantage of these black markets 79 . In the event of fraudulent betting, the operator will certainly have records of the bets placed and winnings paid out, but will not know the real identity of the gambler. A sector with the allure of a totally deregulated financial market, where risks are inherent in the prospect of excessive profits On a worldwide scale, the online sports betting environment comes close to the conditions for pure and perfect competition, where consumers find their way to the producer of their choice and where odds-comparison sites enable them to find the best offer. In the past, sports betting activities were mostly organised by monopolistic or licensed operators at national level. As we have seen, the globalisation of the sports betting market has provoked an increase in bettors returns and consumption, two phenomena that have worked together because operators can more easily improve the rate of return to players as a result of the increase in liquidity. In the meantime, the operators have also taken advantage of this deterritorialised environment by hedging their risks, i.e. by betting themselves with other market operators, and more particularly on the most profitable sites, for example the Asian sites or Betfair (see hedging situation below). EXAMPLE OF A HEDGING OPERATION For a match between team A and team B, a betting operator offers the following odds: Team A wins: 1.61 Team A does not win (victory to team B or match drawn): 2.47 Let us imagine that the operator records income of 100,000, with 70% of bets being placed on team A. In this case: -If team A wins, the operator would have to pay: 70% × 100,000 × 1.61 = 112,700. The operator would therefore lose 12,700 on this match. If the operator wishes to hedge their risks, they can bet with another operator who is offering odds of 1.85 on the victory of team A. If the operator bets 10,000 on team A with the other operator, they minimise their risk: 79 http://www.pubblicaamministrazione.net/file/whitepaper/000156.pdf 41
Page 1 and 2: Sports betting and corruption: How
Page 39: Sports betting and corruption: How
Page 81 and 82: THE CALCIOS COMMESSE SCANDAL ORGANI
Page 83 and 84: Integration of resources Sports bet
Page 91 and 92:
IRIS Sports betting and corruption:
Page 93 and 94:
Sports betting and corruption: How
show all

Sports betting and corruption: How to preserve the - SportAccord

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?