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?
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 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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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 it a criminal matter is just a subsidy to the gambling industry.
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.
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.