Hacker News Reader

Comment by sidewndr46 | Hacker News Reader

I've never really understood why match fixing or throwing a match would be a crime. It takes what is a private matter between competitors and a league organizer and makes it a public matter that the courts supposedly can deal with.

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.

View on HN

> I've never really understood why match fixing or throwing a match would be a crime.

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.

I'm fine with banning all forms of gambling in the United States

Me too. But how do we differ economic gambling vs sports? Only allowed to do it through a broker and not a casino?

I don't know what you mean by economic gambling

Speculation. Stock markets, futures, options, etc.

'financial speculation'

Prediction Markets come to mind as an egregious example.

Let's say we have a game with time running out and the winning team has the ball. They can take a knee and win by 10 or they can kick a field goal and win by 13. They can dribble out the last 7 seconds and win by 8 or they can shoot a 3 and try to win by 11.

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?

> If somebody pays them to kill the clock and not cover the spread, is that fraud?

Yes. It’s called point shaving and it is fraud.

It was pretty confusing that you switched to a second example and second sport mid-paragraph without saying so or switching pronouns. It sounded like the team had four options for its final point total until the end makes you ask, what kind of sport has both field goals and shoot a 3?

Would prohibition really work? It's not like there isn't already a large network of illegal betting in place for all the bets that can't happen legally... it would simply make them thrive even more.

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).

Prohibition of 'any' financial activity is easier than ever now.

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.

I think the problem is that, historically, leagues claim to self-police but then the amounts of $ involved ends up meaning enough individuals can be bribed/threatened/etc. that "fair" matches end up fixed. In the best case, this ends up as fraud and so ends up in the courts anyways, in the worst case, the amounts of $ at play mean people turn to violence and...well that ends up in the courts. So think the idea is that we're better off just making it a public matter from the start, rather then waiting till things escalate into other forms of crime.

It should be handled by civil law. The leagues sell tickets to fair competition. If the players fix the match, then the league is selling a defective product, and common sense suggests they should refund the ticket sales. And the players were presumably contracted to provide fair play, so if they damage the league by breech of contract then common sense suggests the league should be able to sue the players responsible for the cost of the refund. They could require players to take out insurance to ensure they'll always be able to pay.

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

"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?

corruption is a team sport

You cannot legally wager on WWE anywhere in the US, currently (or I imagine anywhere outside it either). [https://www.forbes.com/betting/novelty/wwe/] I didn't know anyone took it seriously as a sport, let alone would want to bet on it. But apparently yes. It's hilarious to hear the term "Academy Awards... a fixed entertainment event". (Waiting for cynics to mention elections.)

> 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 is a 'crime against sports'!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com