How to build an “open” match-fixing alert system

Kerr, Jack

doi:10.1007/s40318-017-0115-6

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, the monitoring bodies' annual reports underscore their achievements with the number of matches they monitor per year, and how many are classified as suspicious matches by, for example, sporting disciplines and geographical regions (ESSA, 2018;Stats Perform, 2019). Often, confirmed cases alerted by the monitoring bodies are used as evidence in legal prosecution or in the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Kerr, 2017).…”

Section: Match-fixing Monitoring At Playmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Odds-wise view: Whose ideas prevail in the global integrity campaigns against match-fixing?

Tak

Choi

Sam

2021

International Review for the Sociology of Sport

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The global expansion of sports betting has resulted in the formation of (inter)national governing regimes aimed at sustaining revenue and regulating attendant issues, including match-fixing. This article explores the workings of these regimes vis-à-vis the management of match-fixing issues in sport. More particularly, this article focuses on betting monitoring programmes as countermeasures against match-fixing and conceptualises these as social instruments that ultimately define issues and influence the wider integrity agenda of anti-match-fixing campaigns. Analysing documentary, observation and interview data from two disparate monitoring programmes, the results show that betting monitoring is a technical extension of corporate risk management, invariably reflecting the business interests of the betting industry. Therefore, the operating logic of betting monitoring defines match-fixing as an act of sabotaging the competitive edge of betting companies. Moreover, this interest-laden paradigm reigns within the broader policy agenda of sport integrity by equating the betting industry's interest with that of sport. From this, the article suggests that betting monitoring plays a part in the legitimation of commercial gambling by reframing the issue of match-fixing as a common enemy that gambling and sport join forces to combat, not a risk that gambling brings to sport.

show abstract

Section: Match-fixing Monitoring At Playmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The main task of betting monitoring is odds tracking (Forrest and McHale, 2019; Kerr, 2017). The reason is because odds, like share market prices, function as an index of where bets are invested.…”

Section: Odds-wise View Of Match-fixingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Odds-wise view: Whose ideas prevail in the global integrity campaigns against match-fixing?

Tak

Choi

Sam

2021

International Review for the Sociology of Sport

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This study is based on the results of the previously published works of the few researchers of match-fixing in sports issues (Carpenter, 2012), (Peurala, 2013), (Zaksaite, 2012), (Lukomski, 2012), (Zaksaite, 2013), (Veuthey, 2014), (Serby, 2015), (Kerr, 2017).…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Problems of Proof in Football Clubs` Disciplinary Liability for Match-Fixing: Practice of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) (2009-2014)

Цзюнь¹,

Васильев²,

Izmalkova³

et al. 2019

J. Sib. Fed. Univ., Humanit. soc. sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Match-fixing is one of the most serious threats to professional football. As noted in one of the decisions of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), CAS 2014/A/3628, "… the protection of the integrity of the competitions is absolutely essential for UEFA, as match fixing is considered to be the biggest threat to sport because it touches at the very essence of the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship". In this article CAS decisions for the period 2009-2014 on cases related to the liability of clubs for match-fixing by officials or players are systematically introduced into scientific circulation. For this purpose, the authors consider the arguments of the parties and CAS in disputes and make the following conclusions. First, the arbitration is not inclined to impose a conditional sanction or reduce the size of the sanction on the basis of proportionality. Secondly, CAS considers an administrative measure to be different in nature from sanctions and therefore not subject to the principle of proportionality. Thirdly, the application of the principle of strict liability allows to hold the clubs that participated in match-fixing activities liable without proving the existence of the club's consent to illegal actions. Fourthly, in order to protect the integrity of sport CAS accepts the use of a wide range of evidence to confirm the fact of match-fixing, including the evidence, the application of which is deemed unacceptable in national legal systems.

show abstract

The court of arbitration for sport jurisprudence on match-fixing: a legal update

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) jurisprudence on manipulation of sports competitions has vastly evolved from its initial award in RSC Anderlecht in 1998, to now Labuts in August 2020. Alongside, international and national regulations, as well as sporting regulations, including, most recently, the Council of Europe’s Macolin Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions, have sought to effectively tackle the omnipresent, ever-growing phenomenon of competition manipulation. Against this backdrop, this article briefly outlines the existing legal landscape on manipulation, followed by a chronological detailing of each CAS issued award. The key aspects of defining such sanctionable behaviour, select issues of standard of proof and types of evidence which are admissible and relied on, as well as the manner and quantum of sanction are then analysed. Ultimately, noting empirical trends across these awards, questions on ne bis in idem, proportionality of sanctions and legal certainty across CAS jurisprudence are raised.

show abstract

How to build an “open” match-fixing alert system

Cited by 5 publications

References 11 publications

Odds-wise view: Whose ideas prevail in the global integrity campaigns against match-fixing?

Odds-wise view: Whose ideas prevail in the global integrity campaigns against match-fixing?

Problems of Proof in Football Clubs` Disciplinary Liability for Match-Fixing: Practice of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) (2009-2014)

The court of arbitration for sport jurisprudence on match-fixing: a legal update

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About