Match fixers play on a loser

Football is all about winning. It does not matter whether the championship is within reach or the team is about to be knocked out of the Cup, the official agenda always dictate that you play to win.

However over the past year, a hidden agenda has begun to emerge. This agenda is not about winning but to achieve a fixed result for the game. Match fixing has become an unfair opponent in the world of football and there is a real risk that sport will be paying a huge price. 

In 2005, a German referee, Robert Hoyzer, was convicted of match fixing. At the time, FIFA president Sepp Blatter characterized the case as a ”one-off”. But a review of articles about match fixing published in international media in the period from 1 January 2005 to 1 April 2006 paints a radically different picture. The media can report more than 25 cases of match fixing allegations, police investigations and convictions from more than 20 countries and four different continents.

What the examples have in common is the fact that match fixing is not employed in an attempt to make a short cut to the championship or promotion. Instead match fixing aims for the immense sums of betting money placed with Internet bookmakers.

English bookmakers alone handle more than four billion pounds a year and 40 per cent involve football. As in any other kind of business, the rule of getting maximum outcome for minimum input applies. In other words, higher odds are better odds.

Odds 1-8787 High odds became a reality in the summer of 2005, when the Finnish club FC Allianssi lost 8-0 to FC Haka Valkeakoski. Sums invested in this game were unprecedented with money coming primarily from Southeast Asia. The “lucky” winners were able to collect their money times 8787.

To complete the picture, Alliansi had been purchased by a wealthy Chinese businessmen just one month prior to the game. A new coach had been instated and nine new players had their first appearance in the game against Haka. Meanwhile the club’s goal keeper was sent off to attend a ”training camp” in Belgium. 

Perhaps this is not a typical example of match fixing, yet one tendency prevails. More often than not, match fixing occurs in less prominent leagues or lower divisions where the salaries of players are low and therefore may work as an incitement to engage in match fixing.

Odds of 8787-1 are striking; but so is a match result of 8-0. To avoid attracting too much attention, match fixing can be done in other ways. One method is to bet on a specific result and yet another method is to bet on combined half time or full time results. Having an impact on several matches simultaneously is also highly desirable because it gives you the opportunity to combine results.

Getting the right players In most match fixing cases which have surfaced in public, outcomes have been as predicted. The reason is that it can be easier to persuade players to guarantee defeat when the team is already trapped in a downward spiral.

Despite high-profile referee scandals in places like Germany, Brazil, Czech Republic and Poland, buying a referee is not simple. Therefore, the goal keeper and defenders are important players to get on board too. Penalties and own goals are part of the game after all.

Though match fixing so far has emerged mainly in lower divisions and less prominent leagues, the problem is steadily approaching the very top of the hierarchy. German referee Hoyzer was convicted of fixing a cup match in a German tournament and in Vietnam match fixing has infiltrated matches at national level in this recent year’s Southeast Asian Games.