Sports betting and corruption: How to preserve the - SportAccord

Sports betting and corruption: How to preserve the integrity of sport
Like the other monitoring systems, EWS-ISM relies on a computerised matrix. Access to information
is enabled by establishing memoranda of understanding - non-contractual agreements - with nearly
450 public and private betting operators, two-thirds of whom may be considered to be fully
cooperative and active in the transmission of data. Among these partnerships are over 20 Asian
operators (including the top 4: IBC, SBO, 188, Singbet), and a similar proportion of operators from the
Balkans (who have a much smaller market share however) 133 .
One of the features specific to EWS is its use of human resources for its market watch - 20 informers,
who operate in complete confidentiality in their own speciality areas, whether particular sports or
particular styles of betting. EWS does not at the moment work directly with the FIFA confederations
but some contacts have been made, particularly with the Asian confederation. As far as other sports
are concerned, the IOC encourages its federations to use the system for their competitions, which they
have done from time to time (as has the international basketball federation), but as yet no long-term
cooperation has been established.
Advantages and disadvantages of monitoring systems
A monitoring system can be an effective detection tool. This is how large operators such as Bwin and
Sportradar detected the fraudulent bets connected with the Hoyzer affair, in which Oddset, a German
public operator, lost over 26 million. The affair demonstrated that the lawful market was not
completely risk-free and could also provide a vehicle for corruption. It was following this scandal that
Bwin launched the initiative to create ESSA.
One might also mention the iconic instance of the Davydenko affair in 2007, where it was the operator
Betfair that originated the alert. The Russian player, who was strongly favoured, abandoned the match
in the third set. Betfair had recorded bets of $6 million on this match, while the average for this type of
game (second round of a minor tournament) is normally estimated to be 10 times less. And more than
that, most of these sums had been bet on the victory of his opponent, and this trend continued
throughout the match even though Davydenko won the first set.
Given the fact that a large quantity of data is retained, a monitoring system can be useful in retrospect
by providing data for investigations and enquiries. Thus, in the case of FC Podeba, UEFA appointed
an expert to carry out a study of the betting data. This expert observed strongly unusual trends on the
Asian market. During the Bochum trial, the CEO of Sportradar appeared as a witness. The operators
and other stakeholders in the market therefore have a strategic position and can be key observers of
anomalies that may conceal a system of corruption in sporting competitions.
Despite this, the ability of monitoring systems to combat corruption in sport does have limits:
- An alert does not constitute proof. There can in fact be many explanations for suspect
movements, such as certain features of a match (underperformance, injury etc.). Most alerts
automatically issued by these systems cannot therefore automatically be interpreted as definite
cases of match-rigging. To do this, it is necessary to move up to another level of alert, in
133 Interview on 5 August 2011
76