Analysis of governmental responses

• Author: Argyro Elisavet Manoli
• Pages: 34-53

34

6.0Analysis of governmental responses

6.1Introduction

This section summarises the main findings from the reviews of governmental responses

in the 11 sample countries. The country reviews aimed to identify how corruption in

sport has been addressed at the member state level through policies, initiatives and

legal developments. The review has identified 85 different national responses to

corruption in sport in the selected countries. Many of these responses are detailed while

more detailed case studies are presented in boxes.

6.2Types of responses

This section provides analysis and examples in relation to four main types of responses

in the fight against corruption:

Legal measures implemented by national governments;

Preventative measures;

New organisational structures;

Collaborative mechanisms.

The mapping research based on the 11 sample countries identified 88 different

responses to the problem of sport corruption. Figure 6.1 shows the number of responses

identified per country.

Figure 6.1Number of responses per country

Source: Ecorys mapping

Legal measures implemented by national governments

Many of the responses addressing corruption in sport in the reviewed countries are

implemented by government through ministries of justice, education, sport or social

affairs and parliament, in the form of legal amendments. Examples identified in the

mapping include:

0246810 12 14 16 18 20 22

Sweden

France

Spain

Malta

Germany

Cyprus

Finland

Italy

UK

Austria

Bulgaria

35

The Bulgarian Parliament introduced in 2011 a new chapter within the Bulgarian

Criminal Code

26, which directly addressessports crimes, such as general bribing and

match-fixing practices. Case study 1 below provides analysis on the impact of these

legal changes.

The New Gaming Act in Malta (2018) aims to strengthen the player protection

framework by formalising the role of the Maltese Gaming Authority’s (MGA’s) Player

Support Unit as a mediator between aggrieved players and operators. The new Act

also envisages new and more effective processes for criminal and administrative

justice. Another important area of focus includes reporting of suspicious sports

betting transactions in the fight against the manipulation of sports competitions.

In Spain, the Laws 5/2010 and 1/2015 have amended the article 286bis of the

Criminal Code, which included all the corruption crimes relating to the private sector,

distinguishing between active and passive types of corruption. As a result of these

amendments, a sub-paragraph has been added that specifically introduces sport

corruption crimes, namely crimes relating to conducts that aim to deliberately and

fraudulently predetermine or alter the results of a sporting event, match or

competition of special relevance in economic or sporting terms.

In Italy, a specific law on sport fraud, Law 401/1989, was introduced in order for

illegal betting and the protection of the running of competitions to be separated from

the previously existing criminal law. This key law criminalised match-fixing and it has

been further amended by the Law146/2014 which significantly increased the

criminal penalties applicable to this crime.

In Germany in 2017 additions were made to the Criminal code (Strafgesetzbuch

(StGB) Article 265c Sportwettbetrug (betting fraud in sport) und 265d Manipulation

von berufssportlichen Wettbewerben (manipulation in professional sport

competitions). This is the main German law against match fixing and betting fraud.

The law makes it a crime to conspire to fix sporting events and sets out prison

sentences of up to three years for any player, coach or referee found guilty of match

fixing. In particularly serious cases, courts may hand out sentences of up to five

years.

In response to allegations of nepotism, bribery and fraud, all associated to fixing the

results of sporting competitions, the Cyprus Sport Organisation Law amended Article

24 of the Law 41/69, criminalising bribery, nepotism and fraud in relation to

manipulating the result of a sporting match. Anadditional law was introduced in

2017, Law 180(I)/2017, according to which imprisonment and hefty fines are decided

as penalties for people found involved in match manipulation, as well as for sport

stakeholders who are involved in betting activities.

Case study 1 –Legal amendments in the Bulgarian Criminal Code concerning

match-fixing

Lead organisation

Bulgarian Government

Key focus/objectives

Legal ground provisions for prosecuting cases of match-

fixing (Chapter Eight “” SPORTS CRIMES, Article 307)

Member State(s)

Bulgaria

Period

Legal amendments adopted in 2011

Programme funding

NA

Aims and approach

26 Bulgarian Criminal Code, Chapter 8: Sports Crimes.