In recent times rigged match outcomes have been seen in popular sports.
Though match fixing upsets the very result of a game, instances of rigging have often been dealt with inadequately by sports regulators and sportsmen are asked to pay small fines or ‘sit out’ for only a few games — token punishments most players would gladly accept.
Over the years, sporting authorities have evolved regulatory systems and in the context of cricket, the International Cricket Council enacted the ‘Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials’ which seeks to prohibit betting, gambling and underperformance in a match.
Yet, the irony of fee sanctions and game prohibitions imposed by various sports regulatory bodies lies in the fact that however grave the match fixing offence, these are the only punishments they are capable of enforcing, consequently appearing to be grossly insufficient in several cases.
Not enough
Why it is not enough punishment that a player loses the consideration for which he played, or is forced to stay away from the game he loves so much? The disciplinary sanctions cannot, by themselves, be effective means of tackling the problem of match fixing in the long run.
No one sporting body has a ‘monopoly’ over all the actors involved in a game, nor does each sporting institution conform to the other’s regulatory mechanisms, thereby making agreement to combat match fixing amongst them difficult.
Also, with the commercialisation of sport, the monetary and non-monetary benefits (such as fame and reputation) that a famous sportsman receives far outweigh the costs he might suffer owing to the disciplinary action initiated against him.
Noted jurist Joel Feinberg suggests that the crucial difference between other diverse forms of punishment and criminalisation lies in the moral condemnation that a ‘crime’ invites. Criminal prosecution must be seen as an expression of the community’s condemnation and essentially differs from civil actions or regulatory activities by sporting bodies in the ‘express’ criticism that it invokes in the minds of people. Thus, when match fixing in sport is regarded not only as a breach of the rules of sport, but also as an offence against the public in general, we are more likely to regain faith in sportsmanship.
In India, no specific anti-match fixing criminal statute exists and thus arguments can only be made under more general criminal legislations, which are most often unable to provide satisfactory grounds for conviction.
Cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code could in some cases, be extended to include cases of rigging, but these sections by no means provide a comprehensive and fool proof mechanism against match fixing.
In various European countries, more progress can be seen in the context of anti-doping laws (called ‘sporting fraud’ legislations). Thus, the rationale behind these can perhaps be extended and applied in formulating criminal sanctions for match fixing.
Unlike disciplinary proceedings conducted by sports authorities, criminal conviction brings with it an expressive element, making society condemn the acts of the offender, thereby serving as a more effective means of general deterrence. The expressive nature of a criminal sanction for match fixing is likely to create an atmosphere which sports regulators cannot ever hope to achieve.
The cohesive role of sport in society mandates that one no longer sees match fixing merely as a breach of sporting etiquette but as an offence against people as a whole. Thus, India must follow the lead of other jurisdictions and enact more comprehensive laws to combat all forms of corruption in sport. It is time to stop ‘sporting’ the criminal and make match fixing a crime.