EU Work Plan
for Sport

Expert Group "Good Governance”

Deliverable 1
Input on the EU's role in fighting match-fixing

June 2012

20112014

XG GG – Deliverable 1: Input on the EU's role in fighting match-fixing
2

1. INTRODUCTION
The EU Work Plan for Sport identifies integrity of sport, in particular the fight
against match fixing, as one of the priority themes for EU level cooperation in sport.
Annex I specifies the actions based on the priorities and includes the following:
"Develop a European dimension of the integrity of sport with the initial focus
on the fight against match-fixing". According to the Work Schedule agreed at the
first meeting of the Expert Group 'Good Governance' (XG GG), the Group is expected
to produce its first deliverable, namely to provide input on the EU's role in fighting
match-fixing, by June 2012. The following recommendations were discussed by the
XG GG at its third meeting on 5-6 June 2012 and will be submitted to the Council
Working Party on Sport.
2. THE EU AND THE FIGHT AGAINST MATCH-FIXING
The fight against match-fixing in sport is a topic that has come to the attention of
policy makers at EU level relatively recently. Concerning the work carried out by the
Commission, while the 2007 White Paper on Sport only generically mentioned
corruption, money laundering and other forms of financial crime as affecting sport at
local and international level, the 2011 Commission Communication on Developing
the European Dimension in Sport explicitly recognised match fixing as a threat
which violates the ethics and integrity of sport. The issue of match fixing was further
addressed in 2011 in the Commission's Green Paper on Online Gambling and in the
Commission Communication on Fighting Corruption in the EU. In the meantime, the
European Parliament touched upon the issue of match-fixing, notably bettingmotivated match-fixing, in its 2009 resolution on the integrity of online gambling
(the 'Schaldemose Report'), in its 2011 resolution on online gambling in the Internal
Market (the 'Creutzmann Report'), as well as in the 2012 resolution on the European
Dimension in Sport (the 'Fisas Report'). The Council dealt for the first time with the
fight against match-fixing in the EU Work Plan for Sport and in November 2011
adopted conclusions on combating match-fixing, inviting Member States, the
Commission and relevant stakeholders to forge close cooperation in order to better
protect the integrity of sport. The two EU agencies in charge of cross-border judicial
and police cooperation, EUROPOL and EUROJUST, are also actively involved in the
fight against match-fixing through the establishment of Joint Investigation Teams
(JIT) involving several countries.
On 28 September 2011, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted
the Recommendation on the promotion of integrity of sport against manipulation of
results notably match-fixing. On 15 March 2012, the Council of Europe's Conference
of Ministers Responsible for Sport meeting in Belgrade invited the Enlarged Partial
Agreement on Sport (EPAS) to launch the negotiations, in coordination with the EU,
on a possible international legal instrument (Convention) against the manipulation
of sports results, notably match fixing.
Besides the EU and the Council of Europe, the IOC launched in March 2011 a
Working Group composed of high-level representatives of the sport movement,
public authorities, international organisations and betting operators to propose
ways to fight against irregular and illegal sports betting, with a roadmap for followup action adopted in Lausanne on 2 February 2012.

XG GG – Deliverable 1: Input on the EU's role in fighting match-fixing
3

Coordination and cooperation among these different processes, which are likely to
remain in place underpinned by a suitable structural framework, is essential to avoid
duplication and to ensure that the fight against match-fixing remains effective.
All these elements point in one direction: the fight against match-fixing has acquired
the status of a priority in different policy areas (sport policy, supervision of gambling
markets, fight against corruption) at EU level, and public attention is likely to
increase following recent match-fixing cases. As has been underlined by Europol,
match-fixing is about serious organised crime, and it is by no means a victimless
crime.
3. THE WORK OF THE XG GG
At the meeting of the XG GG held in Brussels on 13 March 2012, the three ongoing
processes initiated at European and international level to tackle match fixing were
presented, namely the IOC process on the fight against irregular and illegal betting in
sport, the Council of Europe's process towards the possible adoption of a Convention
against the manipulation of sports results, and the EU's involvement in the topic
through the work carried out by the EU Council, the XG GG as well as work on related
issues such as the follow-up to the Green Paper on online gambling.
After having discussed the scope, nature and complexity of match fixing, the XG
agreed that the discussion should be structured around the question "what should
be tackled at which level?" In practice, the problem of match fixing needs to be
broken down into smaller sub-problems and the analysis should be carried out at
that level, with the aim of providing prompt, pragmatic and concrete solutions to a
complex problem.
The following recommendations, addressed to the Council Working Party on Sport,
set out, for each of the identified problems, a series of possible actions, to be carried
out at EU or wider (Council of Europe, international) level. The actors that should be
involved in the process are also indicated; due to the complexity of the issues linked
to match-fixing, several categories of actors are listed, namely: public authorities at
national and European level, law enforcement agencies, the sport movement,
gambling operators and gambling regulators.

--- --- ---

XG GG – Deliverable 1: Input on the EU's role in fighting match-fixing
4

RECOMMENDATIONS ADDRESSED TO THE COUNCIL WORKING PARTY ON SPORT
The Council Working Party on Sport is invited to examine the following
recommendations and to ensure appropriate follow-up by inviting the indicated
stakeholders to take the necessary steps and implement the actions suggested
hereafter. It should be noted that the recommendations are addressed to Member
States, the Commission and the sport movement as the most relevant stakeholders
to take action in the field of fighting against match-fixing. Betting operators are also
indirectly targeted by recommendations addressed to national gambling regulators
and other relevant national authorities.
MEMBER STATES
Definition of match-fixing
There are various interpretations of the concept of match-fixing, also described as
sporting fraud or spot-fixing. An agreed definition would facilitate a common
understanding of the problem and would ensure that an appropriate legal arsenal is
in place to fight against this phenomenon. The definition provided in the appendix to
the Recommendation on the promotion of integrity of sport against manipulation of
results notably match fixing, adopted by the Council of Europe's Committee of
Ministers on 28 September 2011, provides a good working basis for this purpose:
The manipulation of sports results covers the arrangement on an irregular alteration
of the course or the result of a sporting competition or any of its particular events (e.g.
matches, races…) in order to obtain financial advantage, for oneself or for other, and
remove all or part of the uncertainty normally associated with the results of a
competition.
Besides the definition of match-fixing, it is important to identify what acts deserve to
be punishable under criminal law, particularly taking into account those forms of
match-fixing that have a significant economic impact (e.g. betting-related match
fixing or sporting match fixing in professional sports) and are connected to or
involve betting, abuse of insider information, corrupt practices, trafficking or
extortion.
A. Member States are invited to consider establishing a common and sufficiently
comprehensive definition of match-fixing in the framework of a possible
international legal instrument aimed at combating this phenomenon, such as
the proposed European Convention against manipulation of sports results to
be negotiated under the auspices of the Council of Europe. The agreed
definition should in particular be aimed at describing what match-fixing is
and at identifying which cases of match-fixing should be punishable under
relevant criminal law provisions. This would also help to reduce obstacles to
investigation and prosecution encountered in cross-border cases and ensure
that criminal sanctions are effective and enforceable in all Member States.

XG GG – Deliverable 1: Input on the EU's role in fighting match-fixing
5
Legislation
Even though some differences in the legal framework applicable to episodes of
match-fixing exist at national level, harmonisation through an EU-defined crime of
sporting fraud based on article 83(1) TFEU does not seem necessary at this stage, as
demonstrated in the recent EU Study on Match-fixing in Sport. On the other hand,
approximating the way EU Member States interpret match-fixing according to their
existing legislation may be helpful in order to ensure that possible legislative
loopholes are closed and that an appropriate legal framework is available at
international level. An inadequate legal framework is likely to contribute to the
persistence of match-fixing.
B. Member States are invited to consider the adoption of a possible
international legal instrument against match-fixing, such as the proposed
European Convention, aimed at ensuring that national legal and
administrative systems are provided with the necessary legal tools, expertise
and resources to combat this phenomenon.
Prevention
Match-fixing often involves serious organised crime networks operating at national
and international level. As is the case in other areas affected by organised crime,
prevention (and alternative interventions such as disruption) plays a key role on a
par with repression. Prevention in the field of match-fixing should target sports
participants (notably athletes and their entourage at all levels – amateur and
professional -, referees, match officials and sport organisations' staff) but also other
categories of interested stakeholders (law enforcement agencies, public authorities,
gambling regulators, betting operators and their customers) as well as the general
public.
C. Member States are invited to support initiatives at national level aimed at
raising awareness and educating relevant stakeholders as well as the general
public about the risks involved in match-fixing.
Sanctions
The issue of sanctions is linked to that of legislation (see above). Without a
harmonisation instrument in place, criminal and administrative sanctions cannot be
laid down at EU level. The only EU instrument in place in this field is Framework
Decision 2003/568/JHA on private corruption which, however, leaves Member
States free to set levels of sanctions and penalties. More detailed provisions may be
needed, focusing on different levels of sanctions for different types of sporting fraud.
However, this may be achieved through legal instruments that do not involve
harmonisation and that would identify which existing provisions at national level
should be applicable or updated, rather than define a new offence and establish

XG GG – Deliverable 1: Input on the EU's role in fighting match-fixing
6
relevant criminal and administrative sanctions. The existence of sporting sanctions,
particularly those enforced by international or continental sports organisations,
should be taken into account (see recommendation V below).
D. Member States are invited to ensure that dissuasive, effective and
proportionate criminal and administrative sanctions are in place for the most
serious cases of match-fixing. In particular, aggravating factors could be taken
into consideration when laying down the levels of sanctions. Member States
are invited to introduce levels of fines which are such that they may act as an
effective deterrent against match-fixing. They may consider introducing fines
the level of which is determined in function of the value of the benefit or
advantage obtained by the perpetrators of match fixing.
Detection measures
Detection and monitoring mechanisms, often known as 'Early Warning Systems'
(EWS), are used by stakeholders such as sports governing bodies, betting operators
and gambling regulators. Their effectiveness is limited to bets placed through
licensed operators. In order for the various detection and monitoring mechanisms to
complement each other, a higher level of cooperation seems necessary including
alignment of relevant bodies data exchange practices. However, data protection
issues may be considered further and the cost of setting up and maintaining
detection and monitoring mechanisms should also be considered. The way
cooperation among relevant stakeholders may be structured could involve gambling
regulators as key actors at national level, acting both as regulators of the national
gambling markets and as intermediaries between private bodies implementing
detection and monitoring mechanisms.
E. Member States are invited to ensure that national gambling regulators
and/or relevant competent public bodies have the necessary expertise,
resources and tools to deal with issues such as match-fixing and protection of
the integrity of sport, and that they act as intermediaries between sports
organisations and betting operators in collecting and sharing data about
suspicious bets. In particular, gambling regulators should identify sportspecific risks as opposed to general gambling risks.
F. Member States are invited to ensure that gambling regulators only license
those betting operators which provide information about suspicious betting
activities or patterns and that licensed betting operators provide regulators
with relevant betting data, in conformity with the applicable national
regulatory framework. Betting operators should include in their terms and
conditions the ability to disclose information to relevant regulators and sport
bodies in accordance with relevant data protection rules.
G. Member States are invited to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that
existing codes of conduct and rules on betting bans for certain categories of

XG GG – Deliverable 1: Input on the EU's role in fighting match-fixing
7
individuals (participants in a sport event, sport officials, executives and
employees of betting companies) are adequately enforced, for example by
voiding bets placed by those individuals in breach of their obligations.
It is argued that certain types of bets increase risks to the integrity of sporting
competitions and that certain sporting competitions may be more vulnerable in this
respect. There are calls for a system whereby sport stakeholders remain in control of
the events or parts of events on which bets are allowed. Whilst at this stage it may be
difficult to determine by law for all sports which types of bets are or are not allowed
and which competitions are more vulnerable with regard to betting, the risk to the
integrity of sport should be a factor in determining which bets may be offered.
Gambling regulators could play a role in this context.
H. Member States are invited to ensure that national gambling regulators or the
relevant competent public bodies act as arbitrators and/or facilitators
between the organisers of sport events and betting operators in determining
which types of bets present a higher risk for the integrity of sport and which
competitions are more vulnerable in this respect, based on existing evidence
and data and should therefore not be offered and/or be restricted. The degree
of risk of different types of bets may be determined on the basis of agreed
criteria and parameters such as the nature of the competition and of its
organiser. Betting on sport competitions involving only athletes below the
age of 18 may be restricted. Another aspect that should be considered by
gambling regulators or by competent authorities is the need to ensure an
appropriate flow of information between organisers of sport events and
betting operators, in respect of relevant data protection rules. In particular,
organisers of sport events should be informed about bets placed on these
events. As an alternative, Member States may consider the adoption of
appropriate measures establishing legally binding agreements between
sports competition organisers (or their early warning systems) and betting
operators. Such an approach would enable them to agree which aspects of the
game can be subject to betting and it would contribute as well to the
transparency, monitoring and control mechanisms that are required to
enhance the fight against match-fixing.
Law enforcement – prevention, investigation and prosecution
According to the EU Study on Match-fixing in Sport, the obstacles that may exist in
the investigation and prosecution of cross-border match fixing cases seem of an
operational rather than legal nature. Harmonisation of legislation does not seem
necessary. On the other hand, cooperation of relevant ministries, police and judicial
authorities across borders is essential in view of the transnational nature of match
fixing, in particular when it is betting-related. EU-wide coordination is currently
implemented through Europol and Eurojust. Cooperation at international level
between Europol and Interpol is also in place (no international equivalent of
Eurojust exists). Cooperation with the sport movement in this context is also
essential.

XG GG – Deliverable 1: Input on the EU's role in fighting match-fixing
8
I. Member States are invited to step up cooperation among police forces in the
context of Joint Investigation Teams (JIT) dealing with cases of match-fixing
as well as among prosecution services, and to involve the sports
organisations concerned.
J. Member States are invited to ensure that the next orientation document to be
adopted by the Council with a view to providing guidance on the action of
Europol includes a reference to the fight against match-fixing as a type of
serious cross-border crime.
K. Member States are invited to ensure that adequate measures are put in place
to fight against illegal betting operators. Those measures could include
website-blocking and wireless-enabled mobile technology. Cooperation of
national gambling regulators and law enforcement agencies with Internet
Service Providers and financial institutions may be needed for this purpose.
Member States are invited to make the necessary efforts to ensure that bets
and customers of betting companies can be properly monitored and
identified.
Monitoring and follow-up
One of the major issues in the fight against match fixing at national, EU or
international level is the need to ensure coordination of the different stakeholders
involved, in particular public authorities, law enforcement agencies, gambling
regulators, the sport movement in all its components, and betting operators
(lotteries and private operators). No permanent forum for this type of cooperation
exists at national or EU level.
L. Member States are invited to establish as one of the first concrete steps a
national contact point where all the relevant actors involved in fighting
match-fixing can meet, exchange information and coordinate their actions.
M. Member States are invited to ensure that coordination at international level
in the fight against match-fixing is carried out through a permanent forum
and that monitoring of different actions undertaken by the various players is
in place. In this context, Member States are invited to consider joining the
negotiations for a possible European Convention against the manipulation of
sports results, to be launched under the auspices of the Council of Europe,
and to ensure that the future Convention or any other international
instrument is equipped with appropriate and effective monitoring
mechanisms.
N. Member States are invited to consider extending the mandate of the XG GG
with a view to following up on developments at European and international
level and to ensuring that a forum for discussion at EU level of the issues
linked to the fight against match-fixing remains in place until a stable
platform at European and/or international level is established.

XG GG – Deliverable 1: Input on the EU's role in fighting match-fixing
9
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Prevention
O. The Commission is invited to pursue the support of exchanges of good
practices and networking in the area of prevention of match-fixing, initiated
with the 2012 Preparatory Action 'European Partnerships on Sport', by
facilitating the sharing of experiences carried out at national and European
level and providing EU added value in this area. This may be done in the
framework of the Sport Chapter of the proposed 'Erasmus for All'
Programme.
Detection measures
P. The Commission is invited to establish at EU level a network of gambling
regulators with a view to facilitate the exchange of information and data in
the fight against match-fixing, in coordination with other ongoing processes
such as the one launched by the Council of Europe. This network should also
include relevant stakeholders such as law enforcement agencies, sport
organisations and betting operators.
Law enforcement – investigation and prosecution
Q. The Commission is invited to ensure that the protection of integrity of sport
and the fight against match-fixing are included as topics for political
discussion with third countries and the competent international
organisations in the field of sport, notably international federations. The
Commission, with the assistance of relevant stakeholders and Member States,
should identify which countries raise specific issues in terms of gamblingrelated match-fixing episodes affecting sport events taking place within the
EU and consider the most appropriate action, including through international
agreements.
R. The Commission is invited to consider establishing more effective judicial
cooperation mechanisms with third countries, notably with countries that
raise specific issues in terms of gambling-related match-fixing episodes
affecting sport events taking place within the EU.
Monitoring and follow-up
S. The Commission is invited to consider asking Member States for negotiating
directives to join on behalf of the EU, alongside Member States, the
negotiations on a future European Convention against the manipulation of
sport results, to be launched under the auspices of the Council of Europe.

XG GG – Deliverable 1: Input on the EU's role in fighting match-fixing
10
T. The Commission is invited to consider launching further studies to explore
issues of relevance for the fight against match-fixing. Relevant topics that
could be covered by such studies include a detailed examination of data
protection rules in the context of possible sharing of information among
stakeholders (sport movement, betting operators, gambling regulators, law
enforcement agencies) at EU level.

SPORT MOVEMENT
The following recommendations are addressed to the sport movement in full respect
of its autonomy and recognising that a specific approach should be followed by
different disciplines having different characteristics and requirements. The sport
movement has an essential responsibility in preventing and combating episodes of
match-fixing. Actions in the fight against match-fixing should be taken by relevant
sport bodies as a matter of urgency. The sport movement has a primary role to play,
notably as recipient of public subsidies, but cannot act alone. A close cooperation
between sport stakeholders and other relevant actors (public authorities, betting
operators, gambling regulators) is needed in order to effectively protect the integrity
of sport against match-fixing. Some observers have contended that lack of respect
for good governance principles may contribute to conditions that facilitate instances
of match-fixing. Therefore, sound financial management, transparency, risk
management plans and strategies at association and federation level are crucial to
prevent fraud in sport, notably match fixing, and to safeguard the integrity of sport.
Although multiple initiatives have been taken and are currently on-going in the field
of prevention and sanctions, the sport movement needs the full support of the other
relevant stakeholders in order to improve the protection of the integrity of its
competitions.
Prevention
U. Sport stakeholders (federations, leagues, clubs, athletes, referees) at both
professional and grassroots level are invited to implement wide-ranging
preventive measures to alert all relevant actors about the danger that matchfixing represents for the integrity of sport. Preventive measures which can be
implemented by the sport movement involve the following:
a. Drawing up Codes of Conduct targeting the relevant actors (athletes
and their entourage, coaches, referees, managers, match officials, staff
of sport organisations, etc.) and including provisions about reporting
suspicious cases;
b. Including clauses laying down provisions against involvement in
episodes of match-fixing in the contracts of professional players;

XG GG – Deliverable 1: Input on the EU's role in fighting match-fixing
11
c. Drafting manuals explaining the basics of match-fixing, how to avoid it
and what to do to report suspicious cases, for the attention of different
sport stakeholders as well as setting up binding rules at the level of
national and regional sport associations regarding the
treatment/investigation of suspicious cases which are capable of being
applied and enforced;
d. Putting in place a mechanism and a procedure allowing for whistle
blowers to confidentially report cases of match-fixing (e.g. by
designating an independent spokesperson/trusted person who is
respected by the relevant target groups); such reporting should be
taken into consideration by the relevant sporting judicial authority in
the context of sanctions related to the reported cases;
e. Organising information and education campaigns for athletes and
their entourage, match officials, staff of sport organisations, coaches,
supporters and the general sporting public about the threats that
match-fixing represents for the integrity of sport e.g. through
incorporation of educational modules into basic and advanced training
for coaches and instructors.
f. Liaising with relevant national bodies, including gambling regulators,
on exchange of information to assist collaborative work and
investigations to promote effective prevention, disruption and
deterrents.
Sanctions
V. Sport organisations are invited to ensure that sporting sanctions are in place
to deter episodes of match-fixing. Sporting sanctions should be dissuasive
and effective and, at the same time, remain proportionate and in line with
relevant national and EU law provisions.
Other measures
W. Sport organisations are invited to take such other measures as they see fit at
all relevant levels of the sporting chain in order to assist in preventing
episodes of sporting fraud, notably match-fixing, including exchange of best
practices (e.g. measures to be taken by sport associations to ensure sound
financial management by associations/clubs and prevent individual actors
including sponsors or investors from having too much influence on
associations/clubs; strengthening of democratic structures and transparency
at the level of federations, associations and clubs).