Bookies should stump up for betting's unwanted side-effects

[dave nz]

Posted on
Thursday 24 September 2009 00.10 BST
The Guardian


The expansion of the betting industry has increased the opportunity for corruption in sport, so why aren't they paying to help stamp it out?

Like fast-talking bookies and spineless politicians, corruption in sport has been around since the dawn of time. It is everywhere; from the autobiography of Matt Le Tissier to bowls, where New Zealand's governing body is investigating claims that its team at last month's Asia-Pacific Championship deliberately threw a match against Thailand. Meanwhile, journeying across European football is like touring through the heart of darkness. Match-fixing scandals are like rousing anthems: every country has got one.

Yet if all corruption damages the credibility of sport, not all corruption is the same. Think of it like an evangelist would think about man's imperfections – some of our failings we are born with and cannot escape; some of them are artificial, the self-indulgent in pursuit of the self-destructive. The allegation of corruption against the New Zealand bowls team falls into the first category. According to those making the accusations (the pesky Canadians) the motivation was not greed or money, but the prospect of a better draw in the next stage of the tournament. Nothing has been proved but if the claims are found to be true what else could we do other than shake our head and wonder that if not bowls, what exactly is sacred these days?

Le Tissier's effort to make a few quid on the timing of the first thrown-in, on the other hand, is the perfect example of self-indulgence; a petty, man-made corruption. Would he have tried his little scam 50 years ago, before an ingenious bookie had dreamt up the concept of novelty bets in an attempt to part mug punters from even more of their money?

This distinction lies at the heart of the attempts by sporting bodies like the British Horseracing Authority to have the bookies fund the battle against sporting corruption, and the attempts of Bookmakers like Betfair to keep their profits to themselves. Admittedly, this is not a sexy debate but that is because it is has been buried beneath a dungheap of cowardice (from politicians), bureaucratic incompetence (from sporting bodies) and wilful obstruction (from bookies).

The subject seems complex when, in fact, it is very simple indeed; if sport is corrupt, why is it corrupt? The bookies would like us to believe that sport is corrupt because it has always been corrupt, but, as Le Tissier proved, this simply isn't true. Temptation, and those who present the temptation, must bear some responsibility. The expansion in the gambling industry in recent years, particularly on the exchanges, has also seen an explosion in the opportunity for those seeking to manipulate sporting outcomes, or take advantage of "insider knowledge".

Sure, the exchanges have afforded a degree of transparency in recent years. But how many instances of sporting corruption have been conclusively proved? Not many. So exactly how useful has this new transparency been? Not much. "I think they're after something for nothing," Mark Davies of Betfair said yesterday of the sporting bodies' efforts to have a levy imposed on the bookies to help combat corruption.

Even in the context of high-stakes political argument, this is breathtaking. If Mr Davies was caught spray-painting the walls of the BHA's headquarters would he refuse to help pay for the clean-up? Likewise, if the expansion in the betting industry increased the opportunity for corruption (as it has) should not the betting industry pay something towards the cost of combating said problem?

As this paper reported yesterday, the debate will now go before a panel set up by the sports minister, Gerry Sutcliffe, to investigate the subject of sporting integrity. If there is one thing to be learned from repeated viewings of The Thick of It on DVD it is that as soon as any issue goes before an inquiry it stands about as much chance of achieving resolution as Malcolm Tucker's anger management problems.

So let me take a guess at what will eventually emerge from Mr Sutcliffe's panel: nothing much. Let us face it, the Bookmakers are too powerful and they contribute too much to the British economy in terms of job creation and in tax revenues. I guess that is what is called grown-up politics. I guess, too, that we will have to live with that but it is worth noting the only people who want something for nothing are the bookies who make a fortune off the back of sport and are refusing to give anything back.