Abstract
This article analyses the approach of sporting governing bodies, courts and tribunals to recent incidents of alleged corruption in sport. These include the sanctions imposed by FIFA on a Ukrainian football referee and a Macedonian football club President, who were both handed lifetime bans as a result of their involvement with unlawful betting syndicates, decisions which were ultimately upheld by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Other recent examples of high profile sportsmen falling foul of applicable anti-corruption rules include the four-time snooker World Champion, John Higgins and the trio of Pakistan test match cricketers involved in the ‘spot-fixing’ scandal. This article considers the extent to which a ‘zero tolerance’ trend can be identified from these, and other, recent decisions and reflects on some of the wide-ranging proposals to combat corruption in sport.
Highlights
The panel was satisfied „beyond reasonable doubt‟ that there were „repeated contacts between the Appellant and members of a criminal group involved in match fixing and betting fraud‟, both before and after the match in question, during which the referee was offered monies to manipulate the result of the game
The draft bill provides that individuals involved in match fixing would face a prison sentence of between five and 12 years, whilst the maximum sentence for club officials involved in such activities would be 18 years
With the ever-increasing commercialisation of professional sport and the financial stakes 60 involved, it is plain that tackling corruption is an objective which requires a concerted and coordinated plan of attack
Summary
The panel (Michael Beloff QC presiding) concluded that the referee‟s failure to 6 report the fact that he had been the subject of unlawful approaches from individuals seeking to manipulate the outcome of a UEFA Europa League fixture on 5 November 2009, in which he had been appointed to officiate, was sufficiently serious to justify a lifetime ban from any football related activities, pursuant to Article 15 (1) (f) of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations In reaching this conclusion, the panel made some general observations about the prevalence 7 of match fixing in professional sport. Whether and/or to what extent the severity of his sanction would have been increased in circumstances where the newspaper had chosen not to publish the article and the Association had only become aware of the incident some considerable time later and from a source other than Mr Higgins
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
