THE ODDS OF MATCH FIXING
FACTS & FIGURES
ON THE
INTEGRITY RISK OF
CERTAIN SPORTS BETS
January 2015

Author
Ben Van Rompuy, T.M.C. Asser Instituut / Vrije Universiteit Brussel
© T.M.C. Asser Instituut, 2015
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

THE ODDS OF MATCH FIXING
FACTS & FIGURES
ON THE
INTEGRITY RISK OF
CERTAIN SPORTS BETS

T.M.C. Asser Instituut / ASSER International Sports Law
Centre

January 2015

The odds of matchfixing

1.

INTRODUCTION

As a result of technological advances and particularly the emergence and growth of the online
gambling market, sports betting opportunities have increased dramatically, both in terms of the
number of sport events and the number of betting markets available. This diversification of the
sports betting offer has caused considerable concern among various stakeholders. It is often
argued that some of these new betting options pose inherent threats to the integrity of sports
events.
In particular, it is suggested that the following types of sports bets would increase the risk of
betting-related match fixing:
1.

Betting formulas that are weakly correlated to the final outcome of a match, in particular side
bets (i.e. bets on a specific subset of a game, such as number of corners, team to kick-off the
match, who will score the next goal, and which player will get a yellow card).1 It is commonly
assumed that these bets pose substantial integrity risks because an individual can easily
manipulate them and the breach of integrity would be difficult to prove. Since this type of
manipulation (“spot fixing”) has a smaller impact - and in some cases even no impact
whatsoever - on the outcome of the game, the financial, ethical, and sporting sacrifices for
sports-cheaters would be diminished.2

2. Live betting, i.e. the possibility of betting in real-time during the course of a match (also
known as in-play betting or in-the-run betting). A frequently raised argument is that this type
of betting, which has been a key driver of online sports betting revenues in recent years,3
poses specific risks because fixers can take advantage of the higher betting limits and
variations in the odds to maximise profits. In addition, given the short time frame in which

1 These bets are also often referred to as “micro bets”.
2 These potential integrity risks have also been identified in various studies and reports. See e.g. SportAccord, “Integrity in

Sport: Understanding and Predicting Match Fixing” (2011) 28-29; Institut de relations Internationales et Strategiques (IRIS)
“Sports betting and corruption: How to preserve the integrity of sport” (2012); Tilburg Universiteit, Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam, Ernst & Young, “Matchfixing in Nederland: de aard en reikwijdte van het problem, de risico’s en de aanpak” (2013);
Lotteritilsynet, Lotteriinspektionen, and National Police Board Gambling Administration, “Match-fixing in the Nordic
countries” (2013); Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne and ICSS, “Fighting against the manipulation of sports competitions”
(2014).
3 According to estimates, live bets now accounts for more than 70% all sports bets placed online. Université Paris I PanthéonSorbonne and ICSS, “Fighting against the manipulation of sports competitions” (2014); The Allen Consulting Group, “Research
for the review of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001: Online gambling and ‘in-the-run’ betting” (2012).

5

The odds of matchfixing

betting occurs, the detection of suspicious betting patterns is more challenging in comparison
to pre-match betting.4

3. Betting on certain types of sports events that, so the argument goes, are particularly
vulnerable to manipulation such as games where little is at stake in sporting terms (e.g.
friendly matches), matches in lower leagues, amateur competitions or events involving
minors (youth competitions).

Integrity concerns about these types of sports bets also surface in policy discussions at both the
national and European level. As a means to safeguard the integrity of sport and prevent bettingrelated match fixing, calls are frequently made to prohibit such betting products. For instance, the
European Parliament has urged EU Member States to ban live betting, side bets, and betting on
youth competitions “as these have proved to be very vulnerable to match fixing”.5 The Council of
Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions, which was adopted by the
Committee of Ministers on 9 July 2014, similarly refers to limitations on the supply of sports
betting as a relevant anti-match fixing measure. The Convention particularly encourages
gambling regulators of the signatory States, where appropriate and following consultation with
the national sports organisations and betting operators, to exclude sports events that are easier to
manipulate from the regulated sports betting offer.6
The recommendation that risks to the integrity of sport should be a factor in determining which
sports bets may be offered is certainly a welcome one.7 In accordance with applicable legislation,
national gambling regulators could play an important role in this context.8 Evidently, the degree
of risk of different bet types ought to be carefully assessed on the basis of supporting evidence. Yet
here lies a problem.

These potential integrity risks have also been identified in various studies and reports. See e.g. Institut de relations
Internationales et Strategiques (IRIS) “Sports betting and corruption: How to preserve the integrity of sport” (2012); Université
Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne and ICSS, “Fighting against the manipulation of sports competitions” (2014).
5 See e.g. European Parliament, resolution of 14 March 2013 on match-fixing and corruption in sport (2013/2567(RSP));
European Parliament, resolution of 10 September 2013 on online gambling in the internal market (2012/2322(INI)).
6 Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions, Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 9 July
2014, Article 9(1). According to the Explanatory Report, non-official competitions, such as friendly matches with no impact on
rankings or of little interest in other sporting terms, are particularly vulnerable for corruption.
7 See e.g. European Commission, “Staff working document: online gambling in the internal market accompanying the
Communication “Towards a comprehensive framework for online gambling” (COM(2012) 596 final) 94-97; Expert Group Good
Governance (XG GG), “Deliverable 1: Input on the EU’s role in fighting match-fixing” (June 2012); Council of the EU,
Presidency conclusions on establishing a strategy to combat the manipulation of sports results (26-27 November 2012).
8 The decision of a betting operator as to what type of bets to include in its offer is by default the result of certain risk assessment
measures. Each operator continuously carries out internal risk management analysis to maximize product appeal and turnover
and the operator will alter its sports betting product offering accordingly. The management of financial risks may well align with
sports integrity risks, but obviously this is not necessarily the case.
4

6

The odds of matchfixing

Even though knowledge about betting-related match fixing has been steadily growing in recent
years, there still is an overall lack of systematic empirical evidence. Previous research on the risks
associated with certain sports betting types necessarily had to rely on theoretical risk analysis,
consultations with stakeholders (with the obvious disadvantage that information presented by
stakeholders is often self-interested), and/or anecdotal evidence on match fixing incidents
reported in the media.9
This is the first ever study to examine potential links between betting-related match
fixing cases and specific types of sports bets on the basis of quantitative empirical
evidence. It aims to further the understanding of betting-related match fixing and to
inform current policy debates about the appropriateness of limitations on the
regulated sports betting offer.
The report is the result of an independent empirical analysis based on two main sources.
First, Sportradar, the world's leading sports betting monitoring company, has provided us with
key statistics relating to football matches that its Fraud Detection System (FDS) identified as
likely having been manipulated for betting purposes. Since 2009, the FDS has been monitoring
global betting activity on tens of thousands of football matches per season. The dataset of highly
suspicious football matches, gathered over a period of five years (May 2009-November 2014),
offers a most unique evidentiary base to assess to which types of betting market(s) the detected
suspect betting activity related.
Second, we collected and analysed representative samples of pre-match and live football matched
bets placed with sports betting exchange Betfair, which makes its historical data available for
analytical purposes.10
The report is structured as follows:
-

Part 2 offers a regulatory perspective by discussing the experiences of the different EU
Member States so far with rules and practices imposing limitations on the offering of certain
types of sports bets. It also scrutinises to what extent risks of manipulation of sports events
are a decisive factor in determining these limitations.

9 This is not a criticism of the academic research available: it is difficult to find primary sources of evidence on betting-related

match fixing.
10 While this dataset only accounts for betting activity with one European regulated online sports betting operator (albeit one of
the largest ones) it sufficiently illustrates a main trend regarding the degree of market liquidity in special betting markets that
has been generally observed in the literature.

7

The odds of matchfixing

-

Part 3 examines the vulnerability of special betting markets for match fixing, and in particular
spot fixing, from a market demand perspective. The opportunities for criminal organisations
are appraised on the basis of the levels of liquidity in different betting markets, using the data
from Betfair as illustration.

-

Part 4 examines the vulnerability of certain betting markets for match fixing on the basis of
the FDS monitoring statistics. It uses this robust set of empirical evidence to look for patterns
between suspected match fixing and different betting types.

-

Part 5 presents the main findings and draws out their implications for appropriate regulatory
practice.

8

9

The odds of matchfixing

2.

LIMITATIONS

ON

THE

SPORTS

BETTING

OFFER:

REGULATORY

EXPERIENCES

To limit the risk of betting-related match fixing, it is often argued that the legislator or national
gambling regulator should prohibit sports bets that would pose particular sports integrity risks.
Before examining the justifications for this regulatory approach, it is useful to give an overview of
the experiences of different EU Member States in this regard.
This part charts existing or anticipated national rules and practices that restrict the regulated
sports betting offer and examines to what extent these measures are intended as an anti-match
fixing measure.11 The first section provides an overview of national rules and practices that
prohibit betting on certain categories of sports events (2.1). The second section identifies
restrictions on the types of sports bets that may be offered by regulated betting operators (2.2).

2.1

Exclusion of certain sports events from the betting offer

Only in a few EU Member States, the gambling regulator strictly controls the types of sports
events on which betting can be offered by regulated operators (2.1.1). In some other Member
States, the national gambling laws prohibit bets on predefined sports events (2.1.2).

2.1.1

List of sports events authorized for betting

France and Italy are currently the only Member States that operate a list of sports events on which
licensed operators can offer bets. In Spain, a similar mechanism was repealed in 2013.
In France, the legislator strictly regulated the sports betting offer of licensed operators.
According to Act No 2010-476 on the opening up to competition and regulation of the online
gambling and betting sector, licensed operators can only offer bets on national or international
sporting events that have previously been authorized by the French Online Gaming Regulatory

11 For the most part, information on these national rules and practices was obtained through desk research and questionnaires to

national gambling regulators of the 28 EU Member States in the context of a previously conducted study: T.M.C. Asser Institute,
“Study on betting-related match fixing in the EU 28: risk assessment and management & conflicts of interest”, Commissioned by
the European Commission, DG Education and Culture, August 2014.

The odds of matchfixing

Authority (ARJEL).12 Subsequent legislation guides ARJEL in defining the competitions and types
of sports on which bets can be accepted.13 The list of authorized sporting events is defined, and
regularly revised, further to an opinion of the competent sports federation14 or, failing that, of the
Ministry of sports. Four criteria must be considered:
1) the organiser of the sports event must be a sports federation mentioned in Article L.131-1 of
the Sports Code, an international sports federation, a sports organiser mentioned in Article
L.331-2 or Article L.331-5 of the Sports Code or a sports organiser that is legally organized
abroad;
2) the rules applicable to the sporting events must include provisions on the publicity of the
event’s results;
3) the sporting event does not exclusively involve minors; and
4) the sporting event must be capable of attracting a sufficient number of bets.15
For each sport and each sports event category, ARJEL further defines the types of results of the
events on which bets may be offered. Also for this purpose, ARJEL seeks the opinion from the
competent sports federation or the Ministry of sports. The types of results can either be the final
result of the sporting event or the result of the phases of the game during the events.16 It follows
that side bets, which are separable from final or interim match results, are prohibited. Similarly,
bets on elements that cannot be considered a sporting performance (e.g. colour of an athlete’s
shirt or the identity of a flag carrier in the Olympic Games) are not allowed. The results must be
the expression of objective and quantifiable performances of the athletes taking part in the
event.17 Only the sports event organiser can settle the result according to which licensed operators
must pay out the bets.
The full list of authorized sports bets is published on ARJEL’s website.18 When the market was
first opened in May 2010, the list covered fifteen sports. Since then, ARJEL has regularly
amended the list. Currently, the list contains 43 approved sports.

12 Act No 2010-476 on the opening up to competition and regulation of the online gambling and betting sector of 12 May 2010,

Article 12.
13 Décret No. 2010-483 du 12 mai 2010 relatif aux compétitions sportives et aux types de résultats sportifs définis par l’Autorité
de régulation des jeux en ligne.
14 The competent federation is the federation empowered by the French State to (1) organize competitions of the concerned sport
on the French territory and (2) to exercise disciplinary justice towards people subject to the federation’s rules.
15 Décret No. 2010-483 du 12 mai 2010 relatif aux compétitions sportives et aux types de résultats sportifs définis par l’Autorité
de régulation des jeux en ligne, Article 2.
16 Idem, Article 3.
17 Idem.
18 http://www.arjel.fr/-Paris-Sportifs-.html.

10

The odds of matchfixing

Sports betting operators, empowered sports federations or sports event organisers regularly
request ARJEL to authorise bets on new sports events or new types of results. ARJEL has
consistently refused betting on sports where marking is given (e.g. gymnastics, artistic skating,
dressage, and animal training) since, as they involve human judgment, the results are considered
as being exposed to increased risks of manipulation.19
In a series of decisions taken at the end of 2012 and the beginning of 2013, ARJEL also restricted
the betting offer on French football, rugby union, volleyball, basketball, and handball
championships by excluding bets on games where little is at stake in sporting terms (e.g. games
that have no impact on promotion, relegation or qualification for international competitions).20
These restrictions were introduced at the request of the sports event organiser and/or the
competent federation following the detection of suspicious betting patterns related to
championship matches in which there was nothing at stake for at least one team.
In Italy, the gambling regulator (Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, ADM) equally determines
on which sports events licensed operators can offer bets. The ADM publishes, at least monthly,
the official events programme in reference to which bets can be accepted. This list of authorized
(sporting) events is established and revised following proposals by the betting operators.21 All
licensed betting operators’ servers must be linked up to the ADM so that every bet can be
recorded, monitored, and validated (i.e., the regulator is responsible for validating the results of
the event).
Since 2013, licensed operators are also entitled to collect bets on (sports) events that are not
included in the official ADM event programme.22 For this purpose, the operator must submit to
the regulator a proposal for a “supplementary programme”, indicating the nature of new event
types and bets that it intends to include and describing the organisational and technical
procedures for managing and certifying the events in this programme. All supplementary
programmes must be endorsed by the ADM. The bets in the supplementary programme cannot
relate to an event or conduct that is contrary to ethics, public order or decency.23 The approval
process of the supplementary programmes proved burdensome, however. The applicable
regulation required operators to provide at least two documented sources of information to
objectively verify the results of the events. Yet the information provided by the respective
19 See e.g. ARJEL, Decision No. 2012-042 of 5 April 2012 <http://www.arjel.fr/-Decisions-de-l-Arjel-.html>.

20 ARJEL, Decision No. 2012-100 of 29 November 2012; Decision No. 2012-103 of 14 December 2012; Decision No. 2013-005 of

9 January 2013 <http://www.arjel.fr/-Decisions-de-l-Arjel-.html>.
21 Decree of the Ministry of Finance No 111 of 1 March 2006 regulating fixed-odds betting on sporting events other than
horseracing and on non-sporting events, Article 5.
22 Decree of the Ministry of Finance of 18 March 2003 on the offering by authorised licensees of personalised programmes
complementing those offered by the Autonomous Administration of State Monopolies (AAMS).
23 Idem, Article 3(2).

11

The odds of matchfixing

federation often does not cover specific elements (essential for the settling of side bets) or may
not be available in real-time (essential for the settling of live bets). Audiovisual recordings could
be another reliable source, but it forces the operators to store these recordings for at least 10
years.24 This led the ADM to loosen the technical documentation requirements in 2014. It now
authorizes operators to certify bets whose result is unavailable through official sources of
information by means of “elements, news, and information” to be assessed by the regulator.25
Contrary to the French regulatory system, the Italian list of authorized sports bets is not
envisaged as a regulatory instrument to manage risks associated with the manipulation of sports
events. The ADM events programme is based on market demand and the sports event organisers
or competent federation is not involved in the process. The ADM’s policy not to include amateur
competitions in the events programme is possibly the only exception. The decision to enable
licensed operators to broaden their betting portfolio with a customised supplementary
programme, and thus to loosen the existing restrictions on the betting offer, equally reflects the
acknowledgement of market dynamics as a means of drawing players from illegal gambling to
controlled channels. This would ultimately benefit the fight against betting-related match fixing
since: “the recuperation of gaming shares from the illegal market and the monitoring of such
shares through IT control systems allows for a more effective monitoring of individual bets, as
well as identifying any possible anomalies that could bring to light cases of sports fraud”.26
In Spain, the “practical reality … of new market needs” similarly persuaded the legislator to
abandon the catalogue of authorized sports bets.27 Since the opening up of the Spanish gambling
market, the Directorate General for the Regulation of Gambling was empowered to approve and
publish a catalogue of sports, competitions, and sports events that may be included in the
operators’ betting offer. In relation to each sport, the regulator also defined the list of features or
events pertaining to the sports activity that could be the object of betting. Licensed operators were
prohibited from offering bets on sports events that were not included in the catalogue.28 In
response to the demand of the operators, the regulator modified the catalogue several times to
include new sports events. In 2013, the system was abolished. Licensed operators can now
establish their own programme of sports events on which bets are offered, which must, however,
be reported to the regulator. If the regulator finds that a bet included in the operators’ programme

24 Idem, Article 9(2).

Giulio Coraggio, “Italy – Gaming laws changes further liberalize sports betting”, 23 October 2014,
http://blogs.dlapiper.com/mediaandsport/italy-gaming-law-changes-further-liberalize-sportsbetting/
26 Decree of the Ministry of Finance of 18 March 2003 on the offering by authorised licensees of personalised programmes
complementing those offered by the Autonomous Administration of State Monopolies (AAMS).
27 Ministerial Order HAP/1998/2013 of 22 October by which various ministerial orders concerning various types of games are
modified, Preamble.
28 Ministerial Order EHA 3080/2011 of 8 November 2011 which approves the basic rules of straight sports betting, Article 14.
25

12

The odds of matchfixing

contravenes the provisions of the general regulatory framework, it may still demand to suspend or
withdraw this bet.29

2.1.2

Exclusion of sports events involving minors

As indicated in the previous section, in France, licensed operators cannot offer sports bets on
events that “exclusively involve minors” as the gambling regulator cannot include such events in
the list of authorized sports bets.30
A similar restriction can only be found in the national gambling regulatory framework of one
other Member State. In Denmark, licensed operators (online and land-based) are prohibited
from accepting bets on sports events with adolescents under 18.31 The justification for this
restriction is the assumption that minors are easier to influence and thus more vulnerable for
undue external influence.32
In the Netherlands, new legislation amending the Betting and Gaming Act, which will liberalise
the Dutch gambling market by granting licences for online gambling providers, makes reference
to the intention to prohibit betting on sports events involving young athletes.33

2.2

Exclusion of certain types of bets from the betting offer

In most EU Member States, the national gambling regulatory framework only allows fixed odds
betting and/or pari-mutuel betting. Hence, other types of bets are implicitly prohibited. Only a
few Member States, such as France and Greece, expressly prohibit betting exchanges (even
though this is not a different betting type as such).34

29 Ministerial Order HAP/1998/2013 of 22 October by which various ministerial orders concerning various types of games are

modified, Article 3.
30 Décret No. 2010-483 du 12 mai 2010 relatif aux compétitions sportives et aux types de résultats sportifs définis par l’Autorité
de régulation des jeux en ligne, Article 2.
31 Executive order No. 65 of 25 January 2012 on land-based betting, Section 8; Executive Order No 66 of 25 January 2012 on the
provision of online betting, Section 23.
32 Explanatory notes to the individual provisions of the Act on Gambling, Comments on Section 11.
33 The Draft Act amending the Gaming Act, the Gaming Tax Act and certain other Acts in respect of the organisation of remote
gaming is currently before the Dutch Parliament.
34 For a discussion, see e.g. J. Hubble and M. Lycka, “The Prohibition of Betting Exchanges is in Breach of EU Law” (2013) 17
Gaming Law Review and Economics (2) 121-128.

13

The odds of matchfixing

In a limited number of Member States, the legislator or the gambling regulator additionally
restricts certain types of bets.
A first category of Member States prohibits (sports) bets that are considered contrary to national
public policy or ethical principles. In Belgium, the Gaming Act stipulates that it is prohibited to
offer bets “on an event or activity that is contrary to public policy or the accepted principles of
morality”.35 In the Czech Republic, the Act on Lotteries and Other Like Games only allows bets
on (sports) events that are not “in defiance of any ethical principles”.36 In Italy, licensed
operators cannot include bets in their supplementary programme that relate to an event or
conduct that is contrary to ethics, public order, and decency.37 While one can imagine certain bets
that could be considered unethical (e.g. bets on which player in the competition will first break his
leg), the practical relevance of these restrictions appears to be limited.
A second category of Member States prohibits side bets. In France, as discussed above, bets can
only be offered on the final result of the sporting event or the result of the phases of the game
during the events. It follows that micro-bets are prohibited. In Germany, the Amended
Interstate Treaty on Gambling prohibits bets on individual actions during the sport event.38
A third category of Member States limits the live sports betting offer of authorized betting
operators. In Germany, betting during a sport event can only be offered on the final results of
sports events.39 A similar restriction exists in Austria, albeit only in the province of Vorarlberg.
Live betting on sport events is generally prohibited, but live bets that are placed on the final
match result are permissible.40
In Belgium, a future Decree will enable the regulator (Gaming Commission) to draw up a list of
bets that are prohibited because they are susceptible to fraud. The draft Decree provides that
“each licence holder is prohibited from offering betting possibilities that were designated by the
(Gaming Commission) as being susceptible to fraud and published via an informative
memorandum of the Gaming Commission on the website”.41 No indicative date has been set for
the adoption of such a potential list.

35 Gaming Act of 7 May 1999, Article 43/1.
36 Act on Lotteries and Other Like Games of 17 May 1990, Article 26.
37 Decree of the Ministry of Finance of 18 March 2003 on the offering by authorised licensees of personalised programmes

complementing those offered by the Autonomous Administration of State Monopolies (AAMS), Article 3(2).
38 Staatsvertrag zum Glücksspielwesen in Deutschland (2012), §21(4).
39 Idem.
40 Act on the financial statements and the placement of bets and betting exchange customers, VIb Law Gazette 18/2003 as
amended by 9/2012 (Vlb LGBl 18/2003 idF 9/2012), Article 1(6).
41 Ontwerp van Koninklijk Besluit betreffende de lijst van spelen die mogen worden uitgebaat door houders van aanvullende
vergunning via informatiemaatschappij-instrumenten, Article 11(2).

14

The odds of matchfixing

In the United Kingdom, the Gambling Commission has the power to restrict certain types of
bets offered by licensed operators, but so far it does not consider that “such intrusive and
resource intensive methods would be warranted or effective”.42 This is mainly because the
Gambling Commission has so far not been able to establish a pattern of a higher number of
betting integrity cases relating to specific types of bets.43 In 2008, the Commission held a
consultation on the integrity risks related to live sports betting and found no evidence that this
betting type is more at risk of manipulation.44

2.3

Conclusions

The preceding overview signals that currently only two EU Member States, France and Italy,
systematically control the types of sports bets and types of sports events on which bets can be
placed. Only in France, potential risks associated with the manipulation of sports events are a
decisive factor in determining these limitations.
In a limited number of other Member States, limitations on the sports betting offer (some of
which are intended as anti-match fixing measures) take the form of structural prohibitions
contained in the national gambling regulatory framework.
There are at least three reasons why the number of Member States that currently restrict the
regulated sports betting offer as an anti-match fixing measure is relatively small.
First, in various Member States, a public or State-controlled operator enjoys an exclusive right to
offer sports betting (e.g. Finland and Sweden) and/or the legal offer is presently limited to landbased (pari-mutuel) sports betting (e.g. Portugal and the Netherlands). The gambling regulatory
frameworks of these countries contain no or only few provisions relative to the (online) sports
betting offer (of the monopolist). As the examples of the Netherlands and Belgium illustrate,
however, pending new legislation may lead to the introduction of rules and practices that prohibit
certain types of sports bets.

42 Gambling Commission, “Protecting betting integrity” (October 2013) at para. 3.6.
43 In 2008, the Commission held a consultation on the integrity risks related to live sports betting and found no evidence that

this betting type is more at risk of manipulation. Gambling Commission, In-running (in-play) betting: position paper (March
2009).
44 Gambling Commission, In-running (in-play) betting: position paper (March 2009).

15

The odds of matchfixing

Second, evidence-based justifications for restricting certain types of sports bets are generally
lacking. For the most part it is unclear to what extent existing restrictions are based on any
supporting evidence. In France, the list of authorized sports bets is defined further to an opinion
of the competent sports federation, but it is debatable whether this constitutes objective evidence.
Third, even if integrity benefits would be anticipated, they can only be fully achieved if
compliance with the limitations is strictly monitored and if illegal sports betting services are
actively prosecuted. This is a challenging task. Furthermore, the experience with the operation of
a restricted list of authorized sports bets in Italy and Spain exemplifies how the policy objective to
direct customers away from unregulated markets with more attractive betting offers speaks out
against the imposition of restrictions. Keeping sports betting activity within regulated, and
therefore controlled, channels might be the best way to identify and manage potential integrity
risks.

16

The odds of matchfixing

3.

SIDE BETS AND THE THREAT OF SPOT FIXING: A MARKET DEMAND
PERSPECTIVE

As discussed, the assertion that side bets pose increased risks to the integrity of sport rests on two
lines of reasoning. The first argument is that specific events in a match are much easier to
manipulate than the final result. Spot fixing may only require the involvement of one individual.
The second argument is that this type of manipulation, which has little or no impact on the
outcome of the game, would cause less moral hesitancy for the player or referee involved.
To properly assess whether particular sports bets are more susceptible to match fixing, however,
it is insufficient to focus only on the supply side. The willingness and opportunities of players or
referees to e.g. deliberately attempt to get a yellow card or concede a corner does not necessarily
correspond to any substantial demand from criminal organisations.45

3.1

Supply and demand for spot fixing

The demand for betting-related match fixing from criminal organisations, which is driven by the
aim to make a profit on betting markets, essentially depends on two factors.46 First and foremost,
demand depends on the size of the profit that is available. In a market with a higher volume of
trading, higher stakes can be placed without shifting the bookmakers’ odds in an unfavourable
direction. In other words, highly liquid betting markets offer a greater chance to make large
financial gains. Second, demand depends on the (perceived) risk of detection and punishment for
the traders in the betting market that instigated a fix. This detection risk also strongly correlates
with the degree of liquidity in the betting market. Large volumes of bets in a limited market are
suspicious and expose the traders to risk. In a betting market with high liquidity, however, higher
stakes can be placed without attracting undue attention.
Various studies and reports have rightly pointed out that the markets for side bets, at least those
offered by regulated operators in Europe, are too illiquid to pose an actual high risk. Albeit not

David Forrest, “Match Fixing: An Economics Perspective” in M.R. Haberfeld and Dale Sheehan, eds.) Match fixing in
International Sports: Existing Processes, Law Enforcement, and Prevention Strategies (Springer, New York 2014) 188-189. In
this article, David Forest employs the supply-demand model from the literature on economics and crime, which signals that one
must consider the interaction between incentive-based market demand and supply forces to understand changes in the
prevalence of corruption over time.
46 Idem, 181-182.
45

17

The odds of matchfixing

presenting actual figures, it is observed that various bookmakers only offer side bets for highprofile events and that European bookmakers generally restrict the maximum bet that will be
accepted to limit excessive risk.47 This crucial distinction between the potential theoretical risks
and the actual risks of side bets is, however, not always accounted for.48

3.2

Liquidity of side bets markets

To empirically assess the integrity risks associated with side bets from a demand perspective, we
analysed representative samples of pre-match and live football matched bets made available by
the historical data archive of sports betting exchange Betfair.49
The following two subsections discuss the distribution of football betting volume across different
betting markets for two different datasets. The first dataset includes betting on all football
matches over a period of one month (3.2.1). The second dataset narrows the focus to bets placed
on one football competition that attracts one of the highest volumes of sports bets, namely the
English Premier League, over a period of three months (3.2.2).

3.1.1

Dataset A - Betting on all football matches

In October 2014, Betfair offered various betting markets for a total of 2611 football matches from
a wide range of domestic and international competitions. The betting markets can be broken
down into four broad categories:
1) Main betting markets
The main betting markets include the most popular betting formulas, which relate to the
final result of a match: Match Odds (betting on the winner of a match or a draw, i.e. the
traditional 1X2 formula) and Total Goals (betting on the total number of goals to be scored
in a game, e.g. Over/Under 2,5 Goals).

See e.g. Institut de relations Internationales et Strategiques (IRIS) “Sports betting and corruption: How to preserve the
integrity of sport” (2012) 39-40; Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne and ICSS, “Fighting against the manipulation of sports
competitions” (2014) 103-104.
48 See e.g. SportAccord, Integrity in Sport: Understanding and Predicting Match Fixing (2011) 28-29; Tilburg Universiteit,
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Ernst & Young, “Matchfixing in Nederland: de aard en reikwijdte van het problem, de risico’s en
de aanpak” (2013); Lotteritilsynet, Lotteriinspektionen, and National Police Board Gambling Administration, “Match-fixing in
the Nordic countries” (2013).
49 http://data.betfair.com.
47

18

19

The odds of matchfixing

2) Main derivative markets
The main derivative betting markets, which are derivatives of the main betting formulas,
include the Match Winner derivatives and the Goals derivatives. In our sample, the
following bets were offered:

Match Winner derivative markets
Double Chance
Draw No Bet
Extra Time
Half Time
Half Time / Full Time
Match Odds and both
teams to score
Goals derivative markets
Both Teams to Score
Correct Score
Extra Time - Correct Score
Extra Time - Over/Under X
Goals
Exact Total Goals
First Goal Odds
First Goal Wincast
Goal Scored In Both
Halves?
Half Time Score
Half With Most Goals

Second Half Match Odds
Team Win a Half?
Team Win both Halves
Team Win from Behind

Last Team To Score
Next Goal - X Goal
Next Goalscorer - X Goal
Odd or Even
Race to X Goals
Scorecast
Second Half Correct Score
Team Clean Sheet?
Team to Score
Team to Score in Both
Halves
Team Win to Nil

3) Asian Handicap market
Asian Handicap is a form of football betting that gives one of the teams (by default the
underdog) a virtual head start in terms of the number of goals in order to make the contest
theoretically equal. The bet is settled by adding the handicap to the outcome of the match.
4) Side bets markets
The side betting markets offer betting on specific game facts that are separable from the
final outcome of the match and include: (1) Goalscorer markets (betting on which player
will score (first) in a game or score a hat-trick); (2) Cards/Bookings markets (betting on
the total number of Booking points scored by one team or both teams,50 the number of
yellow or red cards in a game, and which player gets a card); (3) Corners markets (betting
on the number of corners received by one or both teams); and (4) Penalty markets (betting
on whether a penalty will be taken by a team).
In our sample, the following side bets were offered for some of the matches:

50 Betfair, like most sports betting operators, uses the following points system for Bookings: Yellow Card = 10 points; Red Card =

25 points; and 2 Yellows resulting in an automatic Red = 35 points.

20

The odds of matchfixing

Goalscorer markets
First Goalscorer
Hat-trick Scored?
To Score
To Score 2 Goals or More
To Score a Hat-trick?
Cards/Bookings markets
Bookings Match Bet
Bookings Odds
Cards Over/Under
Sending Off?
Shown a Card?
Corners
Corners Match Bet
Corners Odds
Corners Over/Under
First Corner
First Half Corners
Penalty
Penalty Taken?

For each selection within a particular betting market, players have the opportunity to bet on the
occurrence (back the selection) or the non-occurrence (lay the selection) of a given event. For
example, in the Match Odds market, a player may lay or back three selections reflecting the
different outcomes (Home Win, Away Win or Draw) at odds selected by themselves.51
In October 2014, the combined football betting turnover for all betting markets (matched bets)
was £419.330.292.52 The table below shows the distribution of the betting volume over the
different betting markets.

Pre-match
Live
Total (%)

Main
89.660.793
289.029.315
378.690.108

90,3

Main derivatives
13.496.960
22.112.876
35.609.836
8,5

Asian Handicap
1.977.254
1.356.526
3.333.780
0,8

Side bets
1.484.967
211.601
1.696.568
0,4

Table 1 – Total betting volume across the betting markets (in £)

The main betting markets account for £378.690.108 or 90,3% of the total betting volume. The
amount of stakes in the main derivative markets represents 8,5% of the total betting volume. In
comparison, the betting volume in the side bets markets is trivially low (0,4%).
A closer look at the distribution of betting volume within the side bets markets reveals that the
Goalscorer markets are by far the most popular: these markets account for about 60% of the
£1.696.568 traded across all side bets markets.
51 Contrary to traditional bookmakers, a betting exchange acts only as a mediator between the players from each side of the

market. It will only accept a bet if it is matched by another player.
52 The turnover represents all matched volumes (e.g. a £5 back bet matched by a £5 lay bet equals £10 in volume).

21

The odds of matchfixing

Pre-match
Live
Total side bets (%)

Goalscorer
943.260
76.278
1.019.638
60,1

Cards/Bookings
269.037
128.636
397.673
23,4

Corners
188.768
6.662
196.430
11,6

Penalty
83.902
25
83.927
4,9

Table 2 – Total betting volume across the side bets markets (in £)

These figures clearly indicate that the betting markets on specific events - such as which player
will receive a yellow card, which player will score one or more goals or whether a penalty will be
awarded during the match - hold very little liquidity in comparison to the highly liquid main
betting markets.
One must keep in mind, however, that Betfair only offers side bets for the larger fixtures. The
graph below gives an overview of the number of matches for which selections in the different
betting markets were available.

Figure 1 – Markets offered for total of 2611 fixtures

In October 2014, the main betting and main derivative markets were available for all or the
majority of the 2611 fixtures. By contrast, side bets markets were only available for approximately
10% of all the football games.
To validate our appraisal of the relative liquidity of the side bets markets, we therefore also
analysed a second dataset that only includes betting on high-profile football matches.

22

The odds of matchfixing

3.1.2

Dataset B - Betting on English Premier League

This second dataset includes all matches bets on English Premier League matches, one of the
most popular competitions that draws the highest betting volume, over a three-month period
(January-April 2014).
For the vast majority of the total number of 120 Premier League matches, Betfair offered all of the
above-mentioned betting markets. The combined betting turnover for all betting markets was
£855.249.389.
The table below shows the distribution of the betting volume over the different betting markets.

Pre-match
Main

256.697.383

479.343.129

736.040.512

%
total
volume
86

Main derivative

47.525.807

52.149.330

99.675.137

11,72

Asian Handicap

4.816.582

1.482.207

6.298.789

0,74

Side bets

Goalscorer

7.762.528

378.796

8.141.324

0,95

Cards/Bookings

1.851.765

906.935

2.758.700

0,32

Corners

2.036.676

7.090

2.043.766

0,24

Penalty

291.161

0

291.161

0,03

320.981.902

534.267.487

855.249.389

100

Total

Live

Total

Table 3 – Total betting volume across the betting markets (in £)

As these figures show, the relative proportion of the betting volume in the side bets markets is
slightly higher than in the previous dataset (1,54% in comparison to 0,4%). Yet the liquidity in
these markets still pales in comparison to the main betting markets, which account for 86% of the
total betting turnover.

Figure 2 – Total betting volume in betting markets (in million £)

23

The odds of matchfixing

The distribution of betting volume within the different side bets markets is completely in line with
those for all football matches. A total of £13.234.951 was traded across all side bets markets. Most
of the bets were placed in the Goalscorer markets (61,5% of the betting volume for all special bets
markets). The second most popular side bet markets are the Cards/Booking markets (20,8%),
closely trailed by the Corners markets (15,4%). Only 2,2% of the side bets related to penalties.
Within the side bets markets, the following 10 selections attracted the highest volume of bets:
Pre-match
Main

256.697.383

479.343.129

736.040.512

% total
volume
86

Main derivative

47.525.807

52.149.330

99.675.137

11,72

Asian Handicap

4.816.582

1.482.207

6.298.789

0,74

Side
bets

Goalscorer

7.762.528

378.796

8.141.324

0,95

Cards/Bookings

1.851.765

906.935

2.758.700

0,32

Corners

2.036.676

7.090

2.043.766

0,24

Penalty

291.161

0

291.161

0,03

320.981.902

534.267.487

855.249.389

100

Total

Live

Total

Table 4 – Total betting volume for most popular side bets (in £)

Of all the selections available in the side bets markets for Premier League matches, the First
Goalscorer market attracted by far the highest stakes (average £41.856 per match based on 120
fixtures). Relative to the total betting volume, this prompts the conclusion that even the most
popular side bet selection for one of the most high-profile football competitions only accounts for
0,59% of the total amounts of bets placed on that competition.

3.2

Conclusions

Despite the obvious limitation of only having access to the volume of bets placed across different
betting markets of one sports betting operator, the figures above sufficiently illustrate the simple
point that the liquidity in the side betting markets is extremely low. To account for the fact that
Betfair, like many European regulated bookmakers, reserves side betting markets for high-profile
football matches, we also analysed a dataset compromising only the matched bets for Premier
League football matches over a larger period. The conclusions, however, are consistent with the
first dataset compromising bets placed on all football matches.

The odds of matchfixing

Since a profitable match fixing operation presupposes the ability to place large bets without
attracting undue suspicion, the demand from criminal organisations to exploit the side betting
markets offered by European regulated betting operators must be considered low. The lack of
liquidity in these markets offers the unattractive prospect of limited profits. And even if an
operator would accept large bets on specific events in a match, the high stakes would arouse a
great deal of suspicion.
The potential risk for individual fraud, i.e. players or referees conceiving and exploiting their own
manipulation without intervention of a criminal organisation, could be considered more
significant.53 However, if advantage were only taken from the betting opportunities offered by
European regulated operators, the profits to be gained from this manipulation (without running
the risk of detection) are minimal.

53 See e.g. Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne and ICSS, “Fighting against the manipulation of sports competitions” (2014)

104.

24

The odds of matchfixing

4.

RISK ASSESSMENT OF PARTICULAR SPORTS BETS: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

The betting monitoring statistics from Sportradar’s Fraud Detection System (FDS) enabled us to
examine the integrity risks of certain types of sports bets on the basis of robust quantitative
empirical evidence. A dataset of football matches worldwide, which the FDS identified as likely to
have been targeted for betting-related match fixing over the course of the last five years, was
analysed to observe patterns related to the betting object and the type of betting market of the
detected suspect betting activity.

4.1

Sportradar’s Fraud Detection System (FDS)

Sportradar launched its FDS in 2009. Using pre-delineated algorithms, the FDS provides alerts if
it detects anything unusual, be it in the odds,54 liquidity, or even regarding the number of
bookmakers who have been forced to withdraw their offering on a specific fixture. The algorithms
can detect extraordinary odds movements or even odds that are incongruous when compared to
Sportradar’s calculated odds. This latter function operates in-play, as the FDS has a set of
expected odds for every conceivable match scenario.
The FDS monitors betting activity on over 53.000 matches per year in football, tennis, futsal,
cricket, rugby union, snooker, and handball across hundreds of different betting operators around
the world.

4.2

FDS betting monitoring statistics

Between May 2009 and November 2014, Sportradar’s FDS has issued a total of 1625 reports on
football matches worldwide that are considered highly suspicious and likely to have been targeted
for betting-related match fixing. This represents less than 1% of the total number of football
matches that have been monitored by the FDS over the last five years.

54 Bookmakers compile their odds based on numerous different factors and statistics but they generally only change their odds

for one of three reasons: team news affecting the probability of the outcome; liabilities due to the betting activity of their
customers; or to move in line with the rest of the market.

25

26

The odds of matchfixing

Within this dataset, 1468 matches have been subject to further analysis using an automated
Suspicious Market Values function.55
The following two subsections discuss the main patterns that emerge from the monitoring
statistics as well as the inferences that we can draw from them. The breakdown by the level and
type of competitions (4.2.1) is based on the full dataset of 1625 football matches that were
escalated by the FDS. The breakdown by the type of betting market (4.2.2) is based on the slightly
smaller dataset of 1468 football matches for which suspicious market data is available.

4.2.1

Breakdown by the level and type of competitions

The overwhelming majority of the total amount of football matches that the FDS identified as
highly suspicious (1625) related to domestic football matches (88% or 1435 matches) in different
jurisdictions.
By contrast, only a fraction of the matches concerned international club matches (6% or 96
matches) or national team matches (6% or 94 matches).

6%
6%

Domestic matches
International club matches
National team matches

88%

Figure 3 – Number of likely manipulated matches (level of competition)

55 Suspicious market values are automatically exported from the FDS based on alert activity within each match.

27

The odds of matchfixing

The breakdown per competition format further suggests that domestic league football rather than
top-level international football is the main target of betting-related match fixing. Of the 1625
escalated matches, 79% were domestic league fixtures (1286 matches).
Interestingly, most of the escalated domestic league matches (997) were played in the first tier
league (78%) rather than the second and lower tier league (or lower).
To a certain extent this runs counter to the common sense assumption that lower leagues, where
media attention is scarce and salaries small, are more susceptible to manipulation in return for
financial reward. One must keep in mind, however, that for third and lower tier football leagues
matches the rate of systematic monitoring of betting activity by Sportradar is lower; the same is
true for other non-domestic league events. Yet this does not mean that betting on such
competitions is not monitored.56
Apart from domestic league football, 16% of the escalated matches involved national cup
competitions or international cup / club football competitions (263). Only 5% of the escalated
matches related to national and international friendly matches (76).

16%

5%
National/International Cup
competitions
National/International
Friendly matches
Domestic League matches

79%

56 At the very least, betting operators use their own surveillance systems as part of their internal risk management and in most

EU Member States in which online betting can be legally offered operators are obliged to report suspicious betting activity to the
gambling regulator. See Oxford Research and VU Amsterdam, “Study on the sharing of information and reporting of suspicious
betting activity in the EU 28”, Commissioned by the European Commission, DG Education and Culture, August 2014.

The odds of matchfixing

Figures 4 & 5 – Number of likely manipulated matches (type of competition)

Competitive youth football and amateur football constitute only a tiny fraction (3%) of the total
number of escalated matches (45 matches). With only 3 escalated matches, women’s professional
football represents an even smaller percentage (0,2%).

4.2.2

Breakdown by the types of betting markets

To assess the integrity risks associated with different betting markets we analysed the slightly
smaller dataset of 1468 football matches for which suspicious market data is available.57
In 38% of the cases (551 matches) the irregular betting activity prompted bookmakers to either
partially or completely remove the betting offer on the match in question - either pre-match or
live.
At the outset, it is opportune to make a general remark about live betting. Contrary to the
prevalent view that live betting inherently produces risks to sports integrity that would not be
present for traditional pre-match betting, the monitoring statistics indicate that in the majority of
cases, irregular betting patterns were detected both pre-match and live.
For 67% of the likely manipulated matches both suspicious pre-match and live betting was
observed (982 matches). Only for 248 matches (or 17% of the total number of matches) irregular
betting patterns were detected solely in relation to live betting. This is thus comparable to the
number of instances were only suspicious pre-match betting was detected (238 matches).
57 As the suspicious market data was automatically exported from the FDS, the author of this report is solely responsible for the

accuracy of these analysis results.

28

29

The odds of matchfixing

Figure 6 – Irregular betting patterns detected pre-match and/or live

It was already discussed that most football betting happens during the match. Moreover, fixed
games will typically see suspicious patterns in live betting since informed bettors can strategically
benefit from variations in the odds and higher betting limits to ensure higher profits. Yet at the
same time, it must be stressed that vast majority of the likely manipulated games equally revealed
indications of suspicious pre-match betting (even though the size of the stakes may pale in
comparison to the live betting).
Of all the key betting markets for which the FDS tracks odds movements, almost all suspicious
betting patterns were observed in the main betting markets (including Match Odds and Total
Goals) and the Asian Handicap market.58 Once again, it appears that match fixers mostly take
advantage of highly liquid betting markets, which all relate to the final outcome of a match.
Furthermore, this also reveals that the fix of having a particular team losing or winning by a
predefined margin (i.e. number of goals) is the most common method of betting-related match
fixing.
For the 1468 likely manipulated football matches, suspicious betting patterns were detected in:

Asian Handicap markets are typically considered as a “main” betting market as they attract similarly high volumes, but to be consistent
with the categorization in Part 2 we continue to make this distinction (i.e. this general trend is not true for Betfair).
58

30

The odds of matchfixing

Figure 7 – Markets with irregular betting patterns

In sharp contrast, only for 6 matches suspicious betting was detected in side betting markets. This
represents a mere 0,4% of the 1468 likely manipulated matches.
It should be reiterated that for many matches, side bets markets are not available. Moreover, the
FDS only monitors these markets for a limited amount of competitions – precisely because they
are unlikely to be targeted for betting-related match fixing. Nonetheless, it is telling that for those
matches were suspicious betting activity was detected in the side bets markets, irregular betting
patterns also appeared in at least one of the other above-mentioned markets.
Suspicious betting activity in only one market
For only small number of the likely manipulated matches, suspicious betting patterns occurred in
only one of the above-mentioned betting markets (Asian Handicap markets, Total Goals markets
or Match Odds markets): 285 matches contained suspicious pre-match betting in only one market
and 162 matches contained suspicious live betting in only one market.
The following table and graph show a breakdown of the number of games for each market while
also indicating whether the irregular betting activity related to pre-match betting, live betting or
both.

Match Odds only
Asian Handicap only
Total Goals only

Pre-match

Live

110
95
80

24
71
67

Both pre-match and
Live
4
7
4

Table 5 – Irregular betting patterns detected in one betting market only

31

The odds of matchfixing

Figure 8 - Irregular betting patterns detected in one betting market only

Suspicious betting activity in a combination of markets
It follows that for the majority of likely manipulated matches, suspicious betting patterns
occurred in multiple betting markets.
To an extent this is to be expected since the main betting markets are related to each other. Taken
together with the finding that for two-third of the likely manipulated matches suspicious prematch and live betting was detected, however, this strongly suggests that match fixers, in an
attempt to avoid the risk of detection and minimize loss of profit, will generally choose to exploit
not one, but several betting markets and options.
In the majority of instances, the fraudulent activity was apparent in all of the three markets (883
matches).

Match Odds +
Asian Handicap
+ Total Goals

Pre-match

Live

Pre-match and
Live

Total

445

454

126

883

Table 6 – Irregular betting patterns in all three main betting markets

The odds of matchfixing

4.3

Conclusions

Three important findings can be inferred from the FDS betting monitoring statistics.
First, what emerges is a clear pattern: the main betting markets used for betting-related match
fixing in football relate to the final score and the number of goals scored during the game (i.e.
Match Odds and Total Goals markets). By extension, the traditional fix of having a particular
team losing by a predefined margin still appears to be a frequently used method (which enables a
maximisation of profit on the Asian Handicap and Total Goals betting markets). The monitoring
statistics overwhelmingly support the earlier observation that highly liquid betting markets are a
prerequisite for betting-related match fixing by criminal organisations. Furthermore, the focus of
the fraudulent betting activity reveals that for most of the likely manipulated matches the
manipulation could realistically only have been achieved through coordinated action by several
players and/or the involvement of the referee.
Second, the prevalence of suspicious betting in the Handicap markets, and in particular Asian
Handicap markets, clearly reflects the fact that the Asian betting markets (where these types of
bets are immensely popular) account for the majority of illicit funds being bet on football.59
According to estimates, over 70% of the betting turnover for football is recorded with Asian
bookmakers.60 European regulated bookmakers restrict stakes and disclose client details to law
enforcement authorities. The Asian system of bookmaking (i.e. bets are collected from the street,
betting shops, online and telephone betting and are passed up through a hierarchical agent
system),61 on the contrary, allows bets to be placed anonymously and without betting limits.
Hence, it is clear as to why professional fixers predominantly choose the Asian bookmakers to
directly place their bets with.
Third, in most cases, more than one of the main betting markets was exploited and irregular
betting patterns were detected both in pre-match and live betting. This evidence does not support
the claim that live betting, by its very nature, would significantly encourage manipulation in
comparison to pre-match betting.

59 See e.g. INTERPOL, “Match-fixing in Football: Training Needs Assessment (2013) 16; Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne

and ICSS, “Fighting against the manipulation of sports competitions” (2014) 81-83.
60 Sportradar, “World Match-Fixing: The problem and the solution” (2014) 10.
61 Idem, 10-11.

32

1.

The odds of matchfixing

5.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though knowledge and awareness about betting-related match fixing has been steadily
growing in recent years, a number of misconceptions still abound. The persistence of these
misconceptions is compounded by the fact that systematic empirical evidence about bettingrelated match fixing is not readily available.
Media reports and interested stakeholders often suggest that certain types of sports bets
significantly increase the risks of match fixing occurring. These concerns also surface in policy
discussions at both the national and European level. Frequently calls are made to prohibit the
supply of “risky” sports bets as a means to preserve the integrity of sports competitions.
In a first-ever attempt to assess the integrity risks associated with certain types of sports bets on
the basis of quantitative empirical evidence, we uniquely obtained access to key statistics from
Sportradar’s Fraud Detection System (FDS). A five-year dataset of football matches worldwide,
which the FDS identified as likely to have been targeted by match fixers, enabled us to observe
patterns and correlations with certain types of sports bets. In addition, representative samples of
football bets placed with sports betting operator Betfair were collected and analysed.
The results presented in this report, which challenge several claims about the alleged risks
generated by certain types of sports bets, hope to inform policy makers about the costeffectiveness of imposing limits on the regulated sports betting offer.

5.1

Main findings

1. Betting-related match fixing is predominantly related to the final outcome of a
match and in particular to the number of goals (winning margin).
The FDS monitoring statistics reveal that the betting markets used for betting-related match
fixing in football typically relate to the final score and the number of goals scored during the
match. Almost all of the suspicious betting activity is detected in the most popular sports betting
markets: the Match Odds market (i.e. the traditional 1X2 betting formula), the Total Goals
market, and the Asian Handicap market.

33

The odds of matchfixing

The fix of having a particular team losing or winning by a predefined (minimum) margin is by far
the most frequently observed method of betting-related match fixing. This is because, when
manipulating a match to lose by multiple goals, profits can be maximized. This manipulation can
only be realistically achieved through coordinated action by several players and/or the
involvement of the referee.
The monitoring statistics thus overwhelmingly support the observation that betting markets with
the highest degree of liquidity are most attractive for match fixers. These markets offer the best
opportunity to make large financial gains with lower risks of being detected.

2. The claim that side bets pose significant match fixing risks lacks empirical
support.

The demand from criminal organisations to exploit the side betting markets, at least those offered
by European regulated sports betting operators, must be considered low. The analysis of the
volume of bets placed across the different markets with sports betting exchange Betfair
exemplified that the liquidity in the side betting markets is extremely low in comparison to the
main betting markets.
Side bets are a betting product geared toward recreational bettors. European sports betting
operators often offer side bets only for higher-profile events (where the players involved would be
less likely to risk losing their careers over a spot fixing operation) and ordinarily restrict the
stakes that will be accepted. Even if an operator would accept large bets on e.g. which player will
get a yellow card, the high stakes would arouse a great deal of suspicion. Subsequently, also the
potential for individuals to exploit this type of sports bet for their own benefit is very limited.
Even though the FDS does not monitor side bets for every match (nor are they available for every
football match) it remains telling that suspicious betting activity has only been detected for a tiny
fraction of matches (6) and that for those matches irregular betting patterns also appeared in the
main markets. This does not suggest that the threat of spot fixing must be entirely discarded.62
The key take away is rather that that the focus of efforts to prevent, investigate, and sanction
betting-related match fixing should lie on fraud linked to organised crime.

A small number of spot fixing instances have been documented, see e.g. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article1210882/Football-legend-Matthew-Le-Tissier-admits-10-000-Premier-League-betting-scam.html.
62

34

The odds of matchfixing

3. The claim that live betting would poses a specific or greater match fixing risk in
comparison to traditional pre-match betting lacks empirical support.

One of the key points that emerges from the FDS monitoring statistics is that match fixers, in an
attempt to spread the risk of detection and minimize loss of profit, will typically choose to take
advantage of both pre-match and live betting options in the three main betting markets (Match
Odds, Total Goals, and Asian Handicap).
For two-thirds of the likely manipulated matches both suspicious pre-match and live betting
patterns was observed and for the vast majority of matches irregular betting patterns appeared in
a combination of these markets.
Although live betting offers some benefits to ensure higher profits (higher betting limits and
advantage can be taken of the variations of the odds) and time to detect match fixing is more
limited, the statistics reveal that the inside information will typically also be used in pre-match
betting.

4. Domestic league football rather than top-level international football is the main
target of betting-related match fixing. The evidence also points to a higher number
of incidents in relation to first tier league matches than second tier league
matches.

International club football competitions and national team matches only represent a fraction of
the total amount of football matches identified by the FDS as likely to have been manipulated.
Most of the likely manipulated matches related to domestic football league fixtures (78%). The
majority of these matches were played in the first tier league rather than the second tier league.

5.2

Implications for policy making

There is a growing consensus that professional match fixers predominantly use Asian bookmakers
to directly place their bets with. European regulated bookmakers restrict stakes, require
registration and identification of the player, and even withdraw betting markets in the case of

35

The odds of matchfixing

irregular betting activity. The Asian system of bookmaking (agent system), on the contrary, allows
bets to be placed anonymously and without betting limits.
Nonetheless, the imposition of restrictions on the regulated sports betting is often suggested as an
appropriate anti-match fixing measure.
If one considers that, in absence of EU harmonization in this field, it is up to each EU Member
State to define an appropriate gambling policy, it appears counterintuitive that a national
prohibition of certain types of sports bets would make sports events less vulnerable for bettingrelated match fixing. Regardless of such measure it would still be possible to place such bets on
the same events elsewhere in the world.
That said, risks to the integrity of sport should arguably be a factor in determining which sports
bets may be offered by regulated operators. In order to strike the right balance with the policy
objective of directing customers away from unregulated markets (with more attractive betting
offers), however, it is crucial that such a risk assessment is based on reliable supporting evidence.
The discussion of the regulatory experience demonstrated that a limited number of EU Member
States impose limits on the offering of certain types of (sports) bets. Unfortunately, for the most
part it is unclear whether and to what extent existing restrictions are evidence-based. Some other
Member States are currently considering the option of introducing certain limitations on the
regulated sports betting offer (e.g. the Netherlands and Belgium).
On the basis of quantitative empirical evidence, this research has found no correlations between
live betting or side betting and possible instances of betting-related match fixing in football that
would justify a prohibition of these bet types. Regarding betting on certain types of events, it
cannot be ruled out that betting on certain football competitions (such as youth competitions,
third and lower tier league matches, and (national) friendly matches) might increase the risk of
match fixing occurring - empirical evidence to make such an assessment is regrettably
unavailable.

36