Sports Law

With its growing commercialisation, the landscape of competitive sport has undergone a significant transformation in recent years, both within Australia and worldwide.

As multi-billion-dollar conglomerates emerge as growing players in the industry, major bodies and governing agencies are increasingly finding themselves captured by the often-insidious interests of corporate entities and global elites.

Within this context, a more nefarious threat has ostensibly found room to grow. Recently, several high-profile cases of match-fixing have come to light, galvanising public discourse and eliciting calls to tighten regulatory frameworks.

What is Match-Fixing?

Competition manipulation, or match-fixing as it’s known colloquially, is a broad categorisation of offences involving any intentional act to improperly alter the course of a sports competition to procure a benefit.

Although it can be performed by anyone, including individual competitors, entire teams or match officials, it is often facilitated by criminals who illegally profit through betting markets.

Beyond the financial motive, match-fixing may also be used to obtain sports-related benefits or advantages, such as securing a better draw in the finals or qualification for a major event.

Why Does it Matter?

From an outside perspective, sport is a seemingly frivolous source of entertainment and general leisure. However, the transformative role it plays in the lives of individuals, communities and society at large should not be understated.

It facilitates healthy lifestyles, creates jobs, enables development and provides a much-needed outlet in increasingly uncertain times. It also fosters understanding and instils a sense of belonging – bringing together people of all different ages from all different backgrounds and cultures.

Corruption in sport subsumes its transformative nature – and negates the positive impacts it has on individuals, society and the economy.  Consequently, there is a clear need to protect sport from corrupt actors seeking to exploit it for illicit gain.

Recent Cases

While competition manipulation is ubiquitous across all sports, football in particular seems to be uniquely susceptible.

Earlier this month, former Western United Player Riku Danzaki and his friend Yuta Hirayama pleaded guilty to an illegal betting scheme that involved them betting on Danzaki receiving yellow cards in Australia’s premier division – the A-League.

They face sentencing this week and could be subject to hefty fines.

According to court proceedings, the pair used Australia-licensed bookmakers Bet365, Sportsbet and Tabcorp and netted over $20000 from the scheme.

The latest scandal comes only a year after three Macarthur FC players were charged with similar offences.

In both instances, the players allegedly involved face potential prison time.

It’s not only professional players who are allured by the quick yet unscrupulous payout.

Two men have been charged after an alleged match-fixing attempt involving a Gold Coast football club.

Police allege on May 12 and June 20, two employees of an offshore investment group acting as “player agents” approached a Gold Coast soccer player at a Coomera address “in a coordinated effort to procure match-fixing behaviour in exchange for payment”.

Why is it happening?

The pervasiveness of match-fixing is primarily driven by offshore betting companies seeking to capitalise on the growing appetite for sports gambling.

In Australia alone, the number of men betting on sport has increased by nearly 57 per cent in the last seven years, with this increase occurring mainly among younger Australians.

According to the data from the University of Melbourne, the rate of sports betting jumped by between 62% and 66% among men aged 18 to 44.

Because young people have a propensity for online gambling, aggressive social media advertising and the use of betting apps have only made sports betting easier and more accessible.

Proclivities around sports betting are so extensive that there is interest in lower professional and amateur levels. A quick glance at one of the many offshore illicit bookmarkers reveals that markets are available for 21 separate Australian football competitions, including second-tier leagues in several states.

At this level, players are particularly vulnerable to offers of a quick payday, especially if they are underpaid or have not received integrity education.

The Regulatory Framework

Considering the growing threat posed by match-fixing, it is essential to examine the existing regulatory framework and assess any potential need for further reform.

Sports Integrity Australia

Sports Integrity Australia coordinates the federal government’s response to competition and match-fixing in Australia. They do so by working with the sports industry, the betting industry, state and territory regulators, and international counterparts to provide a clearer, more transparent, and consistent regulatory framework.

Sporting Organisations

Across all sports, national bodies and organisations have adopted tailored policies to manage betting and match-fixing.

Basketball Australia adopts a zero-tolerance policy on gambling and match-fixing, setting out clear definitions and mandating integrity safeguards.

Football Australia’s National Code of Conduct prohibits betting and misuse of inside information by all “constituents”—including players and officials—on all football-related matters.

Rugby Australia’s Anti-Corruption and Betting Policy bans participants from betting on rugby matches, using inside information, and requires reporting of breaches.

These sports-specific frameworks complement state and federal offences and reflect a multi-layered approach to integrity protection.

Australian Legislation

Following the National Policy in 2011, all levels of government agreed to pursue a nationally consistent legislative schedule criminalising match-fixing. Despite this, more than a decade later, Australia is still without any match-fixing laws at the Commonwealth level.

Apart from Western Australia and Tasmania, most jurisdictions have enacted legislation that introduces specific match-fixing offences for:

1. Engaging in, facilitating and/or seeking to conceal conduct that would corrupt: a betting outcome on an event; a sporting event or contingency, on which it is lawful to bet under Australian law; and
2. The use of corrupt conduct information and/or inside information for betting purposes.

However, the effectiveness of these laws is significantly beleaguered by the inconsistencies that exist between each state. For example, in most jurisdictions, there must be a connection between the conduct and the outcome of a bet for an offence to occur. In Queensland, the only requirement is that the conduct is intended to cause monetary detriment or produce an economic benefit – it does not need to be linked to a betting outcome. The broad construction of the Queensland provisions means that someone who accepts a bribe to fix a sporting event unconnected with betting would be committing an offence in Queensland but not in New South Wales.

Another example of this inconsistency pertains to the permissibility of using ‘inside information’. Unlike the other jurisdictions with specific match-fixing legislation, Victoria does not have a provision prohibiting the use or communication of inside information for betting.

When the legislative framework is considered in a broader context, significant lacunas in its operation are also elucidated. Currently, the match-fixing offences established by the legislation only apply to events on which it is lawful to bet under Australian law. As a result, it does not capture match-fixing that is intended to facilitate bets placed on the illegal gambling market or a foreign betting market. This is particularly significant given the burgeoning popularity of the illegal gambling market and the elusiveness of offshore operators, who use cryptocurrency and shifting domains to evade detection.

Wood Review

In a review of Australia’s sports integrity arrangements, the Honourable James Wood AO QC reaffirmed that the National Policy had yet to deliver a cohesive response to match-fixing. He attributed this in part to the fact that the Commonwealth Government ostensibly lacks the constitutional authority to enact criminal laws effectively targeting match-fixing at a national level.

The other significant finding of the Wood Review was that the current framework was insufficient to effectively address transnational criminal activity – a critical failing considering the globalised nature of sporting competitions and adjacent betting markets.

In light of these shortcomings, the Wood Review recommended that Australia become a party to the Macolin Convention. This would facilitate the enactment of national match-fixing criminal legislation, under the external affairs powers contained in the Constitution, and would continue to promote consistency across state-based legislation.

Macolin Convention

In an international context, the fight against match-fixing has been ameliorated significantly by the enactment of the Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions (Macolin Convention) in 2014. As the only rule of international law governing the manipulation of sports competitions, it proposes a framework for efficient global cooperation, predicated on the detection, prevention, and punishment of match-fixing.

The Potential for a National Regime

In Australia, the responsibility for making laws relating to sport, crime and gambling is confined to the Governments of states and territories. However, the external affairs power granted under the Australian Constitution enables the Federal government to create legislation ratifying obligations imposed by an international treaty.

While Australia signed the Macolin Convention on 1 February 2019, the Commonwealth has given no indication as to when it will be ratified. Until it does so, it lacks the constitutional authority to implement a national match-fixing regime through legislation. Despite this, efforts have already been made by Sports Integrity Australia and the relevant government agencies to establish national criminal offences.

One of the more practical ways suggested to implement a national match-fixing regime would be to amend the Criminal Code to introduce national criminal offences for match fixing. If it were to be amended, then the most obvious starting point for a national regime would be the Model Criminal Law Provisions for the Prosecution of Competition Manipulation (Model Provisions).

Developed and endorsed jointly by the United Nations and the International Olympic Committee, the provisions provide exemplary legislative language for national governments to criminalise match-fixing and are broader in scope than most current state frameworks. Adopting their key principles would significantly expedite the implementation of a national match-fixing regime.

Looking Ahead

Evidently, there is a clear need to introduce criminal offences for match fixing at a national level. Not only would this help to address some of the gaps in the existing frameworks, it may also lead to the harmonisation of state-based regimes.

Given how complex and challenging the issue of match-fixing is to combat, an effective response necessitates education and awareness alongside legislative action. It is crucial that sports organisations ensure that their members are thoroughly educated on the threat of match-fixing and that sporting bodies prioritise the integrity of their competitions.