A small-town police officer took down a large match-fixing ring in tennis
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
Just the previous weekend I heard a guy I knew talk about how he was in the stands at a women't ITF tournament match in a middle-sized city here in Romania.
The "stands" is a big word according to him, there were the two players on the field, their respective coaches and a fence-like structure which separated this guy, one of the couple of spectators there, from the match itself. He was telling us how he could bet during the match for "esoteric" things like what player was going to break next and things like that, and that he made a nice chunk of money betting that the match was going to be a succession of break games. He was also telling us how both of the coaches were also on their phones throughout the match, most probably not to instant message or to post on social media.
Online sports betting has ruined sports.
(And by "successfully", I mean you have to be top-100 , or at least close to it)
Unfortunately, the financial difficulties of being a player outside top-100 invite organized crime involvement like this...
It's pretty crazy for anyone to imagine sports as 'meritocracy' when exact birth-day, parents wealth, school district/ college wealth, etc, clearly is a HUGE driver of sports outcome (1/4 ? 1/2 ? ). And that is not tying in genetics, or cheating, or more.
Scrape any 'meritocracy', and you'll find it a) by humans, b) in a culture, and underlying unfairness of the cultures still has a heavy impact.
Now they have graduated and are (by all accounts very fine, even superb) doctors. My kids will always earn a fraction of what they do. Hard to argue that wealth doesn't create opportunities.
Oh and by the way, my father is a doctor, so you could argue that his wealth enabled my brother to make it into medical school (7 years of undergrad, multiple years of applying before being successful) in the first place.
There are very, very few things more despicable than cheating in sport. Any victory against that vile rot is to be highly commended.
Why though? It's practically a victimless crime. Sport is, by definition, recreation and entertainment. If the perpetrators of sport make better entertainment via corruption of the rules or laws, then who does it hurt, really? Certainly not the spectators or the bottom line of ticket sales.
I can honestly think of a lot of crimes and sins more despicable than this. I mean truly, if you need help listing or recognizing them as heinous, I don't know what to say for you.
I'd place cheating on sport pretty low along any broad scale of despicable human activities.
That just, your opinion, man.
> Sitting across from the FBI agents, Borremans sensed that they weren’t interested in the investigation. The Americans interrogated Rivera, but that’s where the case ended. A senior FBI official said in an interview that the agency reviewed the case as a courtesy to the Belgian police, but he would not comment on the details.
Mafia, the organized crime syndicate born in Sicily and exported all over the world, was particularly affected by the maxi-trials.
Matteo Messina Denaro, the last head of the Mafia, recently arrested and about to die of cancer, led a life that, were it not for the nefarious consequences of his actions and role, would be considered quite ridiculous, certainly not comparable to that of the Mexican or Colombian drug lords: he had little "disposable income", lived in a small apartment, and frequented a few prostitutes, energized by Viagra.
Bernardo Provenzano, who before Messina Denaro was the head of the Mafia, lived for at least a decade in a farmhouse, largely alone, communicating with his "picciotti" with "pizzini," small pieces of paper with something barely comprehensible written on them: when they arrested him, he looked like an elderly man in rough shape.
The Camorra has followed a similar decline, mostly due to internal fighting in the 90s and early 2000s, while the 'Ndrangheta, the Calabrian mafia, is unfortunately still strong, in Italy, Spain, Central Europe, Canada, Australia and South America. The books of Gratteri on 'Ndrangheta are an interesting read.
I hate organized crime as much as one can hate organized crime and "mafiosi", and I would still to this day favor and support the iron fist of Mori, the police chief sent to Sicily a hundred years ago, who used rather, let's say, energetic methods to eradicate the mafia. I would give life imprisonment to mobsters, like one gives candy to kids on Halloween. Generously. But the Mafia and Camorra are no longer as powerful as they once were. And I hope they will be even less so in the future.
Binnu was an ignorant peasant, only good at violent acts, just like Riina and the other corleonesi. He sold himself to the police too. Those people are not criminal masterminds a la Gustavo Frings, are just analphabet goat shepherds with a knack for vioolence.
Mandamenti might be less powerful such as in commanding entrepreneurs Who to hire and so on (mainly because sicily is depleted of Economic activity) but they still control a big part of sicilian politics, huge part of sicily national health system, lots of first sector (natural environment plus huge eu subsidies so a lot of scams and so on), tourist and nightlife activities, drug and prostitution (often in collaboration with black axe from nigeria)…calabria is even shittier and more crippled…should i go on?
In fact, in my original comment, I wrote, "Although still present, organized crime in Italy was severely curtailed...". It is still present.
From a cultural point of view, though, blatant extortions, homicides et similia would no longer be accepted either by the citizens and the politicians, even the corrupted ones; times have changed. I mean, something like the assassination of Mattarella, the President of the Region Sicilia and brother of the current President of the Italian Republic, would be difficult to imagine nowadays. Or the killing of Generale Dalla Chiesa.
Similarly, a new season of terrorism, like the one that in the 70s and 80s terrorized, in fact, Italy, would be difficult to imagine nowadays; the "New Red Brigades" of the early 2000s looked like a group of out-of-shape, ideologically retired "nostalgics", more than a "serious" terrorist group (even if they were able to killed two minor--and I say minor from a political, and not human point of view--semi-political figures)
There is still a lot to do to eradicate organized crime, and as I wrote before, were it for me, I would use the iron fist again, and again. And again.
When the allies liberated Sicily in WWII, many of those Italian-Americans acted as interpreters and assisted the military in consolidating control. The U.S. appointed many mafiosi to manage the island; after all, they were staunch opponents of the Fascists, who had tried to eradicate the mafia.
So one match fixing ring is down for the count and…. This solves what? “Repetitional risk of tennis?
The only interesting thing is how cheap it is to get a player to throw a match. $40,000 high end, average 10,-15,000. Us dollars.
But maybe I’m confused. Is this really a crime?
If it was a private matter leagues would be inclined to either self-police the behavior or just admit the whole thing is rigged. I mean, WWE seems to do just fine with a completely fixed system.
Exactly, that's what I don't get. Is the criminal act that it's a 3rd party person and not the league itself?
> According to a March 2023 CNBC report, WWE—which produces fixed sports-style events such as WrestleMania and Royal Rumble—wants to quell gambling regulator concerns by reducing the chances that high-profile match outcomes leak to the public.
> WWE is “working with” the accounting firm EY, better known as Ernst & Young. EY and rival PwC have helped safeguard results for the Academy Awards, a fixed entertainment event available for wagering in select sports betting states. As it stands, betting operators like DraftKings Sportsbook, FanDuel Sportsbook, BetMGM Sportsbook and Caesars Sportsbook have offered limited wagering on the Oscars.
> WWE, which agreed to merge with UFC... is reportedly pursuing regulated wagering in CO, IN, MI. However, multiple state gambling regulators disputed the CNBC report that used anonymous sources.
It's institutionalized fraud, and a fundraising method for organized crime.
> WWE seems to do just fine with a completely fixed system.
Nobody is currently permitted to wager anything on those fixed WWE matches.
As with all other regulations intended to protect idiots from themselves, the industry is looking to repeal it.
If they are good sports and just kill the clock, is that fraud? If somebody pays them to kill the clock and not cover the spread, is that fraud?
Is risk of somebody manipulating the outcome like this just part of what makes it a gamble?
Yes. It’s called point shaving and it is fraud.
Making things illegal/banned might feel good at first, but if it's barely enforceable and/or the demand for that thing remains very high all you are doing, as a state, is foregoing on a lot of taxes while not even diminishing harm often (sometimes even causing your own harm... I'm looking at you "war on drugs"... and before that the alcohol prohibition).
Financial institutions have required reporting already, watching for large transactions is already in place.
Coming up with penalties and sentences for violations would be the trickier part.
Making it a criminal matter is just a subsidy to the gambling industry.
Looks like it is: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/224
The question asked "Is this a crime?", not "Would this be a crime if done in the US?"
(Counterfactual: "Why Kinder Surprise Eggs are Illegal in the U.S.": https://www.distractify.com/p/why-are-kinder-eggs-illegal. Short answer: banned since 1997 by US CPSC for "containing inedible parts", under a 1938 US law originally passed in response to antifreeze in an antibiotic medication. Yet (phtalate-based) plasticizers in donuts, bread, fast-food in the US, known to be harmful to organs, and heavily restricted in the EU, are not banned in the US.)
I'm grateful for your response, because it brought me back to the post, and the story is fascinating.
> A strange tip had arrived from Belgium’s gambling commission.
I can't speak to Belgium specifically, but in many areas one of the responsibilities of the gambling/gaming commission is ensuring "fair" gambling. So they probably care more about the impact of match fixing on the "fairness" of sports betting rather than the reputational (I assume that's what you meant rather than "repetitional") risk to any particular sport.
When betting is involved, I don't see match fixing as all that different from someone bribing a casino employee to use dice loaded in their favor or help them cheat in a game of cards. Or depending on who's involved, maybe it's more like the casino using dice loaded in the casino's favor.
In any case I think it basically amounts to fraud. The published odds are inaccurate because the outcome has been fixed, allowing the people aware of that to make money at the expense of the people unaware. Fraud is generally a crime, so as long as the match fixing isn't reflected in the published odds IMO it isn't all that surprising that it's a crime.
The fact that a person can bet on anything that doesn't make influencing the outcome of events generally a crime.
Influencing outcomes is a natural response to wagering on outcomes. If that's fraud and unsavory then maybe the problem is the actual institution of gambling and not the manner in which people choose to participate.
(I'd also apply this argument to whether insider trading or stock manipulation should be illegal.)
Not the 'fairness' of sports betting, but the impact on the sports betting industry. If people think sporting matches are fixed, they will stop gambling which is bad news for the gambling industry. It's why the NFL, which is now in bed with the gambling industry, is so paranoid about players gambling. It not only is bad for the NFL, but especially so for the gambling industry they are partnering with.
Not really. Almost no real persons bet on obscure low rank tennis matches... the betting companies know exactly what their role in all of this is, they won't bat an eye unless you completely screw over their financials or draw attention to them - all in all, they still make a fuckton of money.
Most importantly, the "gamblers" usually hedge their bets in the case of something going wrong unexpectedly. That keeps the risk low on average for the "gamblers", the loss from the betting service's profit and taxes (aka the spread between win/loss quotas) is way cheaper than other commonly used forms of money laundering.
Hell, you can launder money with gambling just fine even if you're not involved in fixing matches. Been a decade ago since I had someone explain this to me (I worked in a bar/slot machine joint, adjacent to a betting place), but in general it works by having a ton of people, immigrants from the mastermind's network, using combination bets (e.g. 4 out of 6) with "safe" bets (i.e. pay-outs just an inch above pay-in). They would get 1000€ in the morning, spend all their day at the betting place, and return the money and betting slips to account for it. Even if they'd lose a few hundred, the bosses didn't care as long as they got the slips to back it up. Cops can't do a thing as the bets are all legit and taxes been paid.
And yes, you can launder money through a casino. But you lose a lot.
(a) It's a sport[0] that, while popular enough, isn't, well,... popular enough for its spectators/gamblers to make up enough of the electorate to draw the necessary attention.
(b) If I'm understanding things correctly, it's not "huge games" they're talking about. There's a "subset" of "a" that care about this.
Taken together, those two minimize the interest in the sport (perhaps the minor leagues ... of hockey ... in Texas?)[1]
(c) From what it appears, the players (the most important part of the equation, I'd imagine) don't get jail time. Therefore, it's a matter of finding a reasonable number of "the right kind of player" -- someone who's aging out of the sport, who's (minimal) success was such that the "cost of their reputation" was affordable to organized crime. Someone who's realistic next step in the career ladder was going to be "teaching tennis to children", soon, anyway.
(d) That person is also, likely disenfranchised with the sport and is likely easy to gain loyalty from. And, of course, their celebrity is such that a player "gaining a conscience" would simultaneously remember their mortality.
On the financial side, it's a matter of decentralizing some of the "people who create accounts on betting sites", "people who place bets", and "people who transfer money" down to minimal assignments per person -- the various "mules" end up making up a large part of the actual crime being committed. It has to make prosecuting something like this incredibly tedious. If "the organization" behind this could recruit enough people, their exposure to "committing an actual crime" might end up being so minimal that there's not incentive enough to get them to give up higher rungs in the organization[2]. It would require a sophisticated investigator, but it because of (a), above, it's difficult to find that investigator.
There's not a lot of incentive for the betting outfits to take simple steps like "disallow betting on matches of minimal significance" or taking really any steps to solving this problem. Besides the fact that many are already operating on the fringes of legality and I wouldn't be shocked if all were run by questionable/criminal outfits/individuals, the article makes it sound like "these low level players/low level games" are optimal to the criminals. I'd imagine there's fear about encouraging the criminals to move up to more important matches.
[0] It hurts to say it as it was one of the few that I played well and the few I enjoyed watching.
[1] I can hear someone saying "in X country, and all countries combined, has more followers than GOD!" or something like that. I'll save you the trouble and both concede that "if you're right, I wouldn't know anyway" and that ... maybe minor league hockey really is popular in Waco ... or something. Neither was my point; only that "the people who do care", for whatever reason, don't represent a loud enough voice (or a voice the authorities care enough about) to be useful.
[2] Especially against the usual "snitches get stitches" tactics.
Does that paragraph strike anyone else as strange being in a top tier newspaper like The Washington Post? It reads like a grade school essay where the student is trying to stuff a bunch of miscellaneous facts into a paragraph rather than the polished prose you usually see in a top tier newspaper.