Sports betting and corruption: How to preserve the - SportAccord

Sports betting and corruption: How to preserve the integrity of sport
which information from automatic alerts is cross-checked with pre-existing data on the
individuals involved (cf. Sportradar above). This enables the diagnosis to be refined. In any
event, monitoring alone is not enough to prove a case of match-rigging. There needs to be a
systematic investigation at another level.
- It is admitted that corruption occurs particularly in the illegal market, which operates outside
all regulation. Operators licensed in relatively strict jurisdictions are not the most attractive to
criminals because, in order to place a bet, they need to provide a certain amount of
information that helps to facilitate identification in the event of a suspect operation. In
addition, transparent monitoring systems are used by responsible or cooperative
operatives. In the grey market , it is certainly possible to access and integrate information
relating to variations in the odds offered by operators, but the most useful data - that relating
to volumes of bets - is not accessible.
- It is not generally possible to obtain a finer appreciation of the location of risks because the
volumes of bets placed and their geographic origin are known only to the operators themselves
(except for exchange betting) for reasons of commercial confidentiality. The concept of
geographic trends or aggregated data on the volume of bets placed compared with the number
of gamblers involved does not exist at the present time. Only the operators can therefore use
these elements for analysis and the detection of dubious activities.
- In many countries, there is no legal obligation for operators to issue warnings. Furthermore,
even if this obligation exists (as it does in the United Kingdom), its relevance is conditional
upon revealing recognised cases in order to verify whether the operators have indeed complied
correctly. Also, not all operators have the same criteria with regard to warning thresholds. As
yet, no consideration has been given to establishing common criteria. Lastly, there are no
surveillance audits, which would guarantee the full integrity of the operators.
- Corruption apart, the techniques for hedging risks or sure bets (a process that consists of
betting on the highest odds in the market with different operators in order to obtain a
guaranteed profit) can also help to generate bets that at first sight are unusual and can interfere
with the detection of frauds. In fact, a bet where the amount is judged irrational can
perfectly easily emanate from a professional gambler who is taking advantage of a sure bet or
an operator who is hedging a risk. In neither case does the bet relate to the manipulation of a
sporting event.
- Automated warning systems, however sophisticated, cannot detect everything. These systems
sometimes do not detect suspect movements, so do not necessarily preclude fraud. For
example the vast majority of the first 200 matches covered in the Bochum investigation had
been monitored by Sportradar, but only six of them had triggered an alert. Consistency
matrices are not infallible, they need constant upgrading, and the systems cannot do without
human intelligence.
- Corruptors are constantly changing their techniques to suit their environment and it is possible
to place bets (in particular with the aim of money-laundering) in a sufficiently diffuse manner
as to escape the vigilance of surveillance systems. In fact, the multiple opportunities offered
77