In recent years, sports in India have been beset with controversy. The fallout from the Commonwealth Games 2010 in Delhi and the allegations of corruption against the organizers has led to growing support for regulating and overhauling sports governance and administration in India.
On the 4 February 2013 Europol held a press conference in which it announced the results of Joint Investigation Team on match-fixing in football. More than 380 professional football matches played in Europe between 2008 and 2011 are suspect of being fixed, among which are matches from the most prestige competitions such as the UEFA Champions League.1
Having detailed some of the match-fixing scandals to have been prominent in 2012, and the approach taken at the London Olympic Games in part 1, we go on to examine action being taken across the globe.
Corrupt sports betting and match-fixing was a high profile issue in the lead-up to the London 2012 Olympic Games and continues to dominate the sports headlines. In this article Kendrah Potts looks at what we can learn from some of the processes that were put in place for the London 2012 Olympic Games to identify those involved in conduct which could undermine the integrity of sport.
An exclusive interview by Kevin Carpenter, Executive Contributor for LawinSport
In the build-up to the London 2012 Olympic Games the International Olympic Committee (‘IOC’), representatives of the UK Government and others have stated that sports betting integrity and match-fixing has overtaken doping as the principal threat to the Games.
The Gambling Commission (‘GC’), established under the Gambling Act 2005, regulates the majority of commercial gambling in Great Britain and has been closely involved with sports betting integrity policies generally and more specifically in relation to the Games. In its recently published Annual Report and Accounts for 2011/12.1
it had this to say, “With the 2012 London Olympics approaching our priority has been to ensure that sports authorities, law enforcement agencies and the legal betting industry here and abroad are working together to counter any threat to sports betting integrity during the Games."
To find out more last month I interviewed Julia Mackisack, Director of Corporate Affairs at the
GC, who is responsible for managing the communications of the GC (both internally and externally) and works closely with the Chairman and Chief Executive in managing relationships with stakeholders. I began by asking her about what the Government's intentions were for the GC back in 2005.
With recent attention being focussed on the introduction of the new big bad Bribery Act 2010 it has been easy to forget the legislative regime governing a wider remit of bribery offences in the UK prior to 1 July 2011 (the date on which the Bribery Act came into force). However, Tuesday 1 November 2011 saw the old guard once again taking centre stage
In view of the recent allegations of match fixing in English domestic leagues (which are dealt with well by Nick Di Marco here), it is worth considering what mechanisms the authorities may have for recovering the financial gains of sportsmen and the criminals involved in match fixing, spot fixing, or indeed any other manner of crime.
2012 was predicted to be the year when match-fixing, particularly that related to sports betting, became the principal issue of sporting integrity worldwide with London hosting the Olympic Games. As it transpired there was only one such scandal at the 2012 Games and it was not related to betting. Yet the Olympics did provide the actors in the fight against match-fixing with many invaluable lessons.
The cycling world has been turned on its head with the recent developments surrounding Lance Armstrong and the allegations that he cheated his way to his sporting and financial success. During his reign as Tour de France champion, Armstrong was a sporting superstar, with some of the top brands in sport clamouring to be associated with him. However, with the recent publication of a report labelling him a 'serial cheat' and alleging that he systematically used performance enhancing drugs, the question of whether he deceived sponsors and employers for financial gain has come to the fore.
In the build-up to the London 2012 Olympic Games the International Olympic Committee ('IOC'), representatives of the UK Government and others have stated that sports betting integrity and match-fixing has overtaken doping as the principal threat to the Games.
This is the second part of an interview I did with Julia Mackisack, Director of Corporate Affairs at the Gambling Commission ('GC'), who is responsible for managing the communications of the GC (both internally and externally) and works closely with the Chairman and Chief Executive in managing relationships with stakeholders.
On 16 December 2011 the British Horseracing Authority (‘BHA’) Disciplinary Panel (the ‘Panel’) published its Reasons in arguably the biggest sport corruption case to be heard before a National Governing Body (‘NGB’) to date. The hearing lasted 11 days and involved charges against 13 named individuals. The outcome was:
- near lifetime bans from the sport for Maurice Sines and James Crickmore, the main protagonists in racing’s latest tale of premeditated corruption;
- lengthy (likely career ending bans) for jockeys Paul Doe and Greg Fairley; and
- significant bans also for Jimmy Quinn and Kirsty Milczarek.
Money laundering in football is not a new phenomenon but the poor financial health of world football overall has lead to increased scrutiny in recent years by leading organisations such as Transparency International ('TI') (the world’s leading non-governmental anti-corruption organisation) and the Financial Action Task Force (‘FATF’) (an independent inter-governmental body that develops and promotes policies to protect the global financial system against money laundering and terrorist financing).