IFA has no match fixing rules: reports

The report - which surveys the various legal and regulatory mechanisms used to handle sports fraud across Europe - reveals that many member states already have provisions in their sports laws covering the manipulation of sport and that many sport organisations have similar provisions in their internal rules. However, this is not the case in Northern Ireland, Latvia and Slovenia.

It states: “When it comes to football, out of 21 answers only three football associations (Latvia, Northern Ireland and Slovenia) do not have specific provisions on manipulation of sports results in their internal rules.”

‘Match-fixing in sport: A mapping of criminal law provisions in EU 27’ (March 2012) is the result of the efforts of the Moville-based former Investigating Expert on the issue of organised crime in sport Cecilia Keaveney, who has been raising the issue over recent years.

Her International Written Declaration lodged in the Council of Europe Parliament (2011) was signed by 86 members from 35 countries.

The former TD and Senator who once taught at St Mary’s College in Londonderry called for urgent action on the matter and on April 25, 2012, the ‘Match-fixing in sport” report was passed unanimously in Strasbourg.

Its publication came as the Football Association of Ireland (FAI) revealed it had informed UEFA of allegations surrounding unusual betting patterns at a recent game between Shelbourne and Monaghan in the Airtricity League in which Derry City FC also plays.

But as well as revealing that the IFA is one of only three associations in Europe with no internal rules regarding match-fixing the report also reveals that the association is concerned current gambling laws - one potential method of criminalising match-fixing in the UK - are out of date.

The report states that “the football association of Northern Ireland (UK) considered that existing legislation (in that case Gambling Act) predated the current global threat of manipulation of sports results.”

Currently, there are a number of ways to prosecute match-fixing in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Here you can be jailed for up to two years for cheating under the Gambling Act 2005; jailed for a sentence proportionate to the gravity of the offence for conspiracy under the Criminal Law Act 1977; or jailed for up to seven years for corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906.

In the Republic of Ireland you can be jailed for up to five years for ‘making gains of causing losses’ by deception under the Criminal Justice Act.

Despite these legal provisions hardly anybody has been successfully prosecuted for match-fixing across Europe.

“Examples of criminal jurisprudence in relation to the manipulation of sport results are rare. We identified relevant decisions in only nine countries: the Czech Republic, France, Finland, Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Malta and the UK,” the report states.

The UK prosecution related to spot-fixing in cricket which resulted in a number of players being sentenced to six months, one year, two years and eight months respectively.

But the report also said a number of investigations were ongoing in the UK as at February 2010.

“There are several ongoing police investigations that could lead to criminal sanctions, including one in snooker and one in football (confidential information, no further details),” the report stated.

Considering the lack of successful prosecutions its authors advised: “The limited number of criminal court decisions revealed by our surveys, interviews and desk-based research may be the result of several factors.

“On the one hand, in the majority of cases publicly available resources and even legal databases only contain decisions taken at certain levels, usually at high courts, and not by lower instances.

“Thus these resources seem to be illustrative rather than exhaustive. On the other hand, some factors lead us to conclude that the number of judicial decisions is actually extremely low.

“This might be explained by a lack of reporting, closed or dismissed investigations, and a lack of political willingness to undertake investigations.”